[ExI] A Simulation Argument

Sat Jan 5 09:12:52 UTC 2008

Do we live in a real universe or in a
computer-generated simulation of a universe? The
following formalized logical argument concludes the
latter. As well as being valid, the argument is
intuitively sound being based on classically accepted
assumptions (steps 1 and 5) and empirical facts (steps
2 and 6) about the world we live in. All other steps
in the eight-step argument are logical derivations.

A Simulation Argument

1. If x are unaware and in a real external world,[1]
   then x do not change their state when observed.

2. Subatomic particles change their state when
   observed. [2]

3. Ergo: it is not the case that subatomic particles 
   are unaware and in a real external world.

4. Ergo: subatomic particles are either aware or 
   not in a real external world.

Now, we can solve the disjunction with an assumption
about aware entities:

5. If x are aware, then x have sensory apparatus.

6. Subatomic particles do not have sensory apparatus.

7. Ergo: subatomic particles are not aware.

8. Ergo: subatomic particles are not in a real 
   external world.

Here's a simple formal version of the argument. The
step numbers match the English version above as do the
meanings of the letters which should be clear:

1. (-A & R) -> -C       assumption
2. C                    fact
3. -(-A & R)            1,2 modus tollens, C = -(-C)
4. A v -R               3 De Morgan's
5. A -> S               assumption
6. -S                   fact
7. -A                   5,6 modus tollens
8. -R                   4,7 disjunctive syllogism

We'd complete the argument thus, treating facts as
assumptions and applying the Deduction Theorem in
steps 10 through 13 (see Mendelson [3]):

9. ((-A & R) -> -C), C, (A -> S), -S |- -R        1-8
10.((-A & R) -> -C), C, (A -> S) |- (-S -> -R)
11.((-A & R) -> -C), C, |- ((A -> S) -> (-S -> -R))
12.((-A&R) -> -C), |- (C -> ((A -> S) -> (-S -> -R)))
13. |- ((-A&R) -> -C) -> (C -> ((A->S) -> (-S -> -R)))

So 13 is a tautology of propositional logic. The
argument could also be represented in predicate logic,
especially given the form of English statements 1 and
5. But in this case it only adds unnecessary
complexity such that the simpler of the two
representations is sufficient and preferable.

Quantum Mechanics Explained Classically

It is especially important that the assumptions above
are in fact classically accepted, for it means quantum
mechanics (QM) is here incorporated into a *classical*
model of reality. In other words, QM fits in this
theory positing that in the real world, the states of
all entities exist as they are whether or not they're
observed. But in this theorized real world there is a
simulation of the real world, and in that simulated
world the observer independence of the real world is
not the case, and we happen to find ourselves in that
simulated world.

Why Observer Dependence In A Simulation?

In one term: on-call rendering. In a
computer-generated virtual reality, objects in a
comprehensive model of the world are rendered into a
visible simulation of the world if and only if they
are observed by the user. This serves to conserve
finite system resources as rendering objects is a
costly operation. Let's call this thrifty process
'on-call rendering'. So, under the theory put forward
herein, observation-affected quantum phenomena is
on-call rendering in a computer-generated universe
wherein computer-generated quantum physicists perform
experiments. Their experiments have reached to the
roots of the program that we live in, exposing the
actual fabricated fabric of our universe. [4]

Stepping Aside

Now, standing aside from the theory above, I'm still
agnostic about any simulation theory. It is one thing
to execute linguistic formalisms of logic, even
co-mingled with classic assumptions about the world,
and another to prove the resulting statements are in
fact true about the world outside the language. The
problem I still seem to find with simulation theories
is that of testability. What test could prove we are
not in a simulated universe? If we can't answer that,
then we can't prove we are in a simulated universe.
But the above argument at least makes it seem
plausible to me at the time I'm writing this. ~Ian

____________________________________________________

[1] Definition of 'real external world' : observable
area outside an observer the fundamental components of
which exist as they are observed by the observer
independently of the observer's observation of them.

[2] That observation changes the state of subatomic
particles is most unequivocally demonstrated by
Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse
Proof of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5814/966

http://fr.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0610/0610241v1.pdf

[3] Mendelson, 'Introduction to Mathematical Logic':
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0412808307

[4] 'On-call rendering' advances an argument that may
have been originally proposed by unidentified
wikipedia editor 66.227.203.49 here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simulated_reality&diff=97026101&oldid=97024349

http://IanGoddard.net

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very
persistent one." - Einstein

"What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you are
talking about what you feel, smell, taste, and see,
then 'real' is merely electrical signals interpreted
by your brain." - Morpheus

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 