[extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...)

[Hal Finney]

People often misstate the simulation argument.  Let's keep in mind what
http://www.simulation-argument.com says:

"This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is
true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a
"posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely
to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history
(or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer
simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance
that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is
false, unless we are currently living in a simulation."

It doesn't say that we are living in a simulation.  It says that if
we're not, then it is unlikely that we will evolve into posthumans who
run a great number of simulations.  The reason is because if we do evolve
that way, then most minds will be in simulations rather than reality.

Although the simulation argument is not falsifiable, that doesn't make
it meaningless.  It's not meant to be a scientific hypothesis, which is
where we demand falsfiability.  As its name implies, it is a philosophical
or even a logical argument.  It's more like a mathematical theorem than a
scientific theory.  We don't test mathematics with falsifiability; rather,
we look at the underlying proofs and arguments to see if they are sound.
That is the proper test for this case.

The simulation argument does not imply that we live in an infinitely
nested simulation.  Here is what Nick says on the topic, from
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html :

: It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. They
: may then run their own ancestor-simulations on powerful computers
: they build in their simulated universe....  If we do go on to create
: our own ancestor-simulations, this would be strong evidence against
: (1) and (2), and we would therefore have to conclude that we live in
: a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans
: running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their
: creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.
:
: Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the
: hierarchy to bottom out at some stage... there may be room for a large
: number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over
: time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis
: is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would
: be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be
: prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to
: be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)

My interpretation is that while it is possible for there to be deeply
nested simulations, the argument does not actually predict this as
a likely consequence.  Only once we ourselves become posthuman and
run simulations, would this follow.  Otherwise, it's possible that the
simulators may choose not to allow nested simulations to run.  We have
no knowledge of their motivations, and this possibility is completely
consistent with our observations and with the simulation argument.

Hal