Skip to content

Simulation Argument (Mike Lorrey)

From the Quicksilver Metaweb.

Stephensonia

*So Hiro's not really here at all. He's in a computer-generated universe that his computer is drawing on to his goggles and pumping into his earphones. In the lingo, this imaginary place is known as the Metaverse. Hiro spends a lot of time in the Metaverse. It beats the shit out of the U-Stor-It.

Hiro is approaching The Street. It is the Broadway, the Champs Elysees of the Metaverse. It is the brilliantly lit boulevard that can be seen, miniaturized and backward, reflected in the lenses of his goggles. It does not really exist. But right now, millions of people are walking up and down it.*

The Simulation Argument, i.e The Matrix Metaphor

A modern form of Pascal's Wager, the Simulation Argument is an argument of Bayesian Reasoning stitching together various bits of knowledge of cosmology, computational science, and transhumanist theory to provide a tool by which one could potentially estimate the odds that the universe we live in (or any universe) is a natural one, or one that is a simulation, a creation of an advanced race of people evolved to a state of post-humanity.

Postulated in its modern form by philosophy fellow Professor Nick Bostrom of Oxford University, the Simulation Argument posits the following:

"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."

Proposition 1

1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;

This argument is derived from the commonly known Drake Equation used by astronomers and SETI researchers to estimate the likelihood of the existence of intelligent alien civilizations capable of using interstellar radio technology at any given time in our galaxy. First popularized in astronomer Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos" as well as his television show of the same name, the Drake Equation is thus:

N = N1 * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

  • ''N1'' represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Current estimates are 100 billion.
  • fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them (20% to 50%(.
  • ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life (1 to 5).
  • fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves (100% - 0%).
  • fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves (100% - 0%).
  • fc is the fraction of fi that communicate (10% to 20%)
  • fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?

Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? Even then, how long will we use radio technology? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th. When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with: N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Critics of SETI tend to pounce on this proposition, because by their very cynical estimates, the human race IS the only intelligent communicative race in existence in this galaxy. The problem is that they are considering only one galaxy. The Simulation Argument must consider ALL galaxies in the entire universe, thus N* starts off with an almost infinitely larger number of stars and makes the odds of even one intelligent species survive into maturity much more sure.

They then counter that the odds of an intelligent species surviving into post humanity is surely much worse than the odds of reaching the stage of being able to communicate. This is true, however the trials of transcending to post-humanity are a threshold to a generally immortal lifespan to an intelligent species. While the odds of surviving nanotechnology, biotechnology, nuclear proliferation, among other threats of posthumanity are greater, the greatly extended lifespan for those that survive such a period causes the formerly miniscule fL fraction to grow to a rather significant span of the life of one's birth planet, if not capable of outliving the planet of one's birth.

Furthermore, the Drake Equation really only is intended to discern the number of such civilizations currently in existence at any given point in time. Under the Simulation Argument, only one such posthuman civilization needs to exist in the entire life of the average universe.

For the purposes of the Simulation Argument, we adapt the Drake Equation to instead estimate the number of species that achieve posthumanity without making themselves extinct.

All this being said, the odds of more than one intelligent species per universe reaching post-humanity is to any rational person absolutely assured.

Proposition 2

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);

This proposition could be true or false for any number of reasons.

It's Impossible

One of which that it is impossible to run true universe simulations. This is most likely evidence that we are in a natural universe. Some argue that we could just be in a simulation that doesn't allow its occupants to run simulations within it, but this is unlikely for another whole host of reasons.

It's Just Wrong

Another is that such an advanced society may develop a moral position that it is wrong to create a universe in which intelligent beings could be subjected to the most savage or cruel treatment at the hands of each other. This is of course a typical argument of those who choose to be atheists because they cannot conceive of an all-loving god that would allow humans to suffer as they do. This tends to fall into solipsistic errors of logic.

Looking at our own civilization, we see that as technology advances, humans seem increasingly more likely to run simulations: to solve everyday problems, for entertainment value, or to communicate virtually.

While some nations have at times attempted to outlaw various technologies for what they believe are moral reasons, those cultures tend to be rapidly surpassed by those that develop moral arguments in favor of new technology. This occured with crossbows and firearms, the wheel (the Inca), and today we see many attempts made at containing nuclear technology and outlawing stem cell medical research.

Societies which refuse to innovate condemn themselves to the dustbin of history. Some other society will always choose to take advantage of such weakness.

It's Too Expensive

Even given posthuman civilization, the bother of constructing a huge enough computer just to run whole universe simulations on it seems, well, a waste of time and energy to us mere humans of the early 21st century. We do, however, have a history of underestimating the sorts of things humans are willing to waste time and energy on.

Historically, the cost of any given resource drops with time. Energy is cheaper now than at almost any other time in human history. Metals are cheaper, food is cheaper. Claims about malthusian endings in our near future are plainly disproven by the facts. Every time a resource gets scarcer, humans find ways to recover them for even less cost and ways to consume them more efficiently.

Given the exponential technology path we are currently on, when we surpass the technological singularity, the cost of energy and material will drop to nearly nothing, making universe simulations entirely affordable.

Proposition 3

(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.

The reason for this is the odds. If only ONE posthuman civilization arises in the entire history of the average universe that engages in running universe simulations, then the odds that any given universe is a simulation cascade to such an infinity of nested universes so as to nearly equal 100%.

For each additional civilization in each universe, or each additional simulation each civilization runs more than one, the odds, once they exceed 50%, very quickly pile up.

For example, assuming a posthuman civilization in Natural Universe A simulates Simuilated Universe B. Even if only one posthuman civilization in Simulated Universe B arises, the chance of the average person being in Universe A versus B is 50%. If there is more than one civilization in Universe B, then the odds go up that one lives in a simulation. If the one B civilization lives twice as long as the A civilization, the average person is 66% likely to be living in a simulation. If the B civilization simulates ONE universe too, then the average person is 66% likely to be living in a sim. If civ A produces TWO universe sims that each develop one posthuman civ, the average person is 66% likely to be living in a sim. Similarly, if Universe B creates simulation Universe C, which creates D, which creates E, etc. we quickly fall into the nesting of odds to reach near unity.

If simulated universes allow their own posthuman civilizations to also simulate universes, then we wind up in a situation of vast fractal heirarchies of simulated universes being spawned by just one natural universe, and the odds of the average person living in that one natural universe approach zero.

While we don't have all the answers to properly determine the right result of the Simulation Argument yet, the educated guesses we are making, even at their most cynical, still wind up proposing that the odds are in favor of our universe being a simulation.

But Does It Matter?

The opponents of this conclusion then aver "Why would it matter, if you can't tell the difference?" This is a fair question, but they forget that it is a useful argument to examine, because if we live in a universe incapable of running universe simulations, then odds logically follow that we live in a natural universe, one which arose accidentally, as a quantum fluctuation in the true vacuum.

If we are capable of running universe simulations, then odds are that there is a hacker out there in some other universe who regards himself or herself as our 'Creator God'. Let us hope it isn't someone like L Bob Rife.