349
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The fact that the universe could be a simulation does not mean that the world around us does not really exist. Instead, one should perceive it has having a different nature than previously thought. Ultimately, the computer in which the simulation runs, and its electrical activity, would be physical at the basic level of reality <ref name=”8”></ref>.
==Implications of living in a simulation==
It is possible that if we are living in a simulation there would be no way to identify it. The virtual reality would seem completely real. Even so, we could never be certain that we would not be living in a virtual reality <ref name=”6”></ref>. However, some researchers have suggested that simulations may have limits – that even posthuman simulators with advanced knowledge of the laws of nature would still not have a complete knowledge of them. These flaws would be subtle but could result in glitches in the simulation. Another possibility is that the simulators would try to fix these flaws by patching the virtual reality. These updates could result in changes to the laws of nature, over time. Living in a simulated reality would mean that occasional glitches would occur, along with small drifts in the constants and laws of Nature <ref name=”2”></ref> <ref name=”4”></ref>.
A study published in the journal ArXiv, in 2012, suggests that there is always the possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators, and offers the prediction that there might be limitations on cosmic ray energy levels if reality is indeed a simulation. Furthermore, it predicts that the reason for the posthuman civilization to run simulations is to test out string theory. Detailed simulations could allow for future researchers to test hypotheses about the universe and disprove a number of possible different versions of string theory <ref name=”4”></ref> <ref name=”5”></ref>. This would give credence to the suggestion that the posthumans have an incomplete knowledge about the laws of physics, and therefore it is expected that there would be gaps and flaws in their simulations <ref name=”2”></ref> <ref name=”4”></ref>.
It is expectable for the simulators to be economical and practical in their simulated realities if they were for entertainment, for example. They could avoid the complexity of using a consistent set of laws of Nature, patching instead “realistic” effects. These could cause some problems and be identifiable from within the simulation. Another cause for sudden glitches in the simulated realities could be the use of error-correcting codes. This is a technique that has been effective in the simulation of complex systems. These codes would correct mistakes in the simulation much like the error correcting system that exists in DNA. If the genetic system did not have a correcting mechanism, it would eventually be corrupted by the build-up of mutations. The computer equivalent of this system also guards against error accumulation. The use of error-correction codes could lead, once in a while, for a correction to take place, leading to sudden changes that would appear to contravene the laws of nature present in the simulation. Finally, the simulations would have a similar level of computational complexity, in which “the simulated creatures should have a similar complexity to the most complex simulated non-living structures.” <ref name=”2”></ref>
There is also the question of how can we trust the observations made about reality if it is a simulation. The simulation argument relies on the assumption of the technological capabilities of a posthuman civilization, and the evidence for that assumption is empirical, based on the current best theories about the physical limits of computation. Ultimately, these observations of the world around us could be misleading, providing data about the simulated reality and not about the underlying reality in which the simulation is running. However, according to Bostrom, “the claim that we cannot have any information about the underlying reality if we are in a simulation is false.” He provides two conditional claims that can be know if reality is a simulation. These are adapted from the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page available in the website [http://www.simulation-argument.com www.simulation-argument.com] <ref name=”9”> Bostrom, N. (2008). The simulation argument FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html</ref>:
'''1.''' If we are in a simulation, then the underlying reality is such as to permit simulations, it contains at least one such simulation, and (3) (the third proposition of the argument) is true.
'''2.''' If we are not in a simulation, then the empirical evidence noted in the simulation argument is veridical taken at face value, suggesting that a technologically mature civilization would have the ability to create vast number of simulations; and consequently, by the simulation argument, there is a very high probability at least one of the disjuncts in (1)-(3) is true <ref name=”9”></ref>.
==References==
