Talk:Simulated reality hypothesis/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The objections section contains a significant omission:

disposes of, most of the arguments for simulation. If the observed pheneomena can be explained with an unsimulated universe, they should be.1Z 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

___________

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." -Occam's Razor

I think you wrongly assume that the simple solution is that this world is not simulated or artificial.

It may be that the simple solution is that you're being fooled just like in your dreams. If you admit that you are regularly tricked by your own brain into believing a simulated reality (aka dreams) is the real world (which would then be subjective evidence) then the simple solution is that you're just being fooled again.

In other words, your dreams negate "all things being equal".

If you've never been tricked into believing a simulated world is real then you could make use of Occam's razor. But my guess is that you want to use Occam's razor because it fits in better with your present view of the "real" world.

But your experience most likely builds up a stronger case for it being a simulation. Unless you're always able to differentiate your dreams from reality while you're in the dream and not in hindsight after waking up?

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

"It may be that the simple solution is that you're being fooled just like in your dreams. If you admit that you are regularly tricked by your own brain into believing a simulated reality (aka dreams) is the real world (which would then be subjective evidence) then the simple solution is that you're just being fooled again".

Sorry, that is a non-sequitur. If I am being fooled during my waking hours, I am not being fooled by the same neural mechanisms that operate during sleep -- I am being fooled by something else, such as a computer simulation. The "something else" is the unnecessary complication that the razor removes.1Z 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

'In other words, your dreams negate "all things being equal"'.

No. A situation where I am being fooled when I am dreaming and not when I am awake is simpler than a situation when I am being fooled when am I am awake, and fooled twice over when I am dreaming.1Z 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The simplest solution is that one simulation fools you both times. That negates the need for multiple systems/simulations. It's also a more efficient allocation of resources and handles the people who dream they are dreaming (fall asleep in their dreams) or experience a false awakening. Those stacked simulations are clearly all part of the same simulation which makes it easier to state the entirety of your experience(s) could be under the umbrella of one simulation. The alternative of two independent systems requires additional resources and is more complex.

"But your experience most likely builds up a stronger case for it being a simulation. Unless you're always able to differentiate your dreams from reality while you're in the dream and not in hindsight after waking up?"

The fact that I can be fooled sometimes doesn't build up any case that I am being fooled right now. You are not going to persuade me that I am in Munich right now by pointing out to me that I have been in Munich before, although I have.

Occam's razor isn't about the simplest explanation in absolute terms, it is about the simplest explanation that fits the facts. The facts require that I am in a virtual reality while dreaming, so that cannot be cut away by the razor, but any further simulation can be1Z 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Occam's Razor cont'd

"Sorry, that is a non-sequitur. If I am being fooled during my waking hours, I am not being fooled by the same neural mechanisms that operate during sleep -- I am being fooled by something else, such as a computer simulation. The "something else" is the unnecessary complication that the razor removes." - Peter Jones

You have no idea what is really fooling you during sleep. Remember, if it's a simulation then your dreams are part of the simulation too. The very thing that fools you during sleep could ultimately be the same over-arching simulation.

It's still another "entity" which isn't needed by the unsimulated reality theory.

Simply because you dream doesn't mean the entire experience (dreaming and waking) is not simulated.

Pointing that out only means that it is possible that the entire experience is simulated. My argument is that not that simulation is impossible, it is that it is an unnecessarily complicated

explanation.

You know the dream isn't "real" because you wake up. But that is a very flimsy rock to hold onto given your propensity to be fooled.

It is evidence that the dreaming state is a simulation. There is no corresponding evidence that the waking state is. There is basically no evidence for the simulation theory, so it is chutzpah to complain about "flimsy" evidence.

Except for all the evidence outlined in this article. So not quite as much chutzpah as you might think. =-)

That evidence doesn't really count because there are other and better ways of explaining it. The article does not make that clear, and that is a fault.

If you were in a dream would you use the same Occam Razor's analysis until you woke up?

Yes, and I would be right to do so. The Razor does not tell you what Ultimate Truth is, it cuts down an infinity of potential explanation.

Rather than testing out whether you're in fact dreaming.

If I has a smoking-gun test, I would use it. But that is not analogous to anything. What is the smoking-gun test for a matrix style simulation?

If this is a simulation then there may be tell tale signs of design elements which would reflect the hands of the designers. I think this article is a good launching point for those investigations.

None of the "design elements" is smoking-gun proof because they can all be explained other ways. If you have multiple explanations for the same data, that is where Occam's razor comes in.

"Occam's razor isn't about the simplest explanation in absolute terms, it is about the simplest explanation that fits the facts. The facts require that I am in a virtual reality while dreaming, so that cannot be cut away by the razor, but any further simulation can be." - Peter Jones

The simple solution could be that you're being fooled all the time.

Only if I am being fooled in a uniform way, and if the fooling doesn't require a complicated apparatus such as a giant computer. It is difficult to see how both these conditions could be met.(Being fooled in a uniform way would erase the waking/dreaming distinction).

If you're being uniformely fooled then discussions about an apparatus that is complicated is not necessary since that apparatus is a simulation too.

if it is being simulated, then there is a further piece of apparatus....how complicated is this going to get?

You're arguing about the complexity of a device that you only learned about in a potential simulation. So it would not be more difficult than imagining a dinosaur brain is simulating it. They would both just part of the same simulation. The key is that you're a person who is fooled by simulations -- so the idea that you're potentially being fooled right now is rational.

I am not arguing against the possibility of simulation, I am arguing against its likelihood.

Your argument doesn't work, at least with regard to Occam's Razor, because you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If X then Y. X = all all things being equal. Y = the answer you want, namely, it's real and not a simulation. Unfortunately, you start out from a very tenuous position. Tonight you'll fall asleep and if you dream of being on Wikipedia you'll make the Occam Razor argument and be completely wrong because you're dreaming.

True but irrelevant. My use of Occam's razor is disproved by further evidence, the experience of waking up. However there is no equivalent of waking up from the matrix. So all you are left with is the claim that what Occam's razor tells you is not necessarily the ultimate truth (not disputed) and that the Matrix scenario is at least true (also no disputed).

And that is why things are simply not equal. You're writing as a person who has the wool pulled over their eyes regularly, which you like to discount or ignore completely.

There is no inference from being fooled in one way on one occasion to being fooled in other ways on other occasions, any more that grey elephants are evidence for pink elephants.

For this reason you cannot trust your senses. And that is why you need to put in more time than simply leaning on Occam's Razor to avoid analyzing your surroundings and determining if there is evidence that would lead you to conclude this is a simulation. That doesn't mean you can trust your senses, but even with senses that are questionable you may still be able to conclude it is a simulation not unlike realizing you're dreaming.

Ok: I analyse my surroundings and end up with more than one hypothesis to explain them. How

do I choose between hypotheses?1Z 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The factual pattern is that you are a person who is easily fooled into believing a simulated environment is reality.

That isn't any kind of argument to the effect that I am being fooled right now.

It increases the likelihood from speculation about whether you're the kind of person easily fooled into believing a simulaton is real to fairly likely.

Whatever. However foolable I am, that doesn't mean I am being fooled. I am fairly likely to die if shot in the head, but I am not being shot in the head.

In addition you also appear to have a strong bias toward wanting a simulated world to be "real".

Huhhh?

Faith in the world being real doesn't make it so. Analyzing all of the evidence and our own experiences a priori is probably a better route.

Indeed. And such analysis will involve occam's razor and will therefore conclude that non-simulation is the best explanation, unless some evidence can be produced that can only be explained by simulation. 1Z 13:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot ignore your own experience. That tilts the balance. If you were never fooled and never dreamt then your use of Occam's Razor to conclude this is not a simulation would make sense. However, you are regularly fooled and will probably be fooled again within the next 24 hours. That means you should spend more time analyzing the evidence presented in this article and take it seriously -- since you're precisely the kind of person most likely to be fooled. Which is true for most of us.

"Most"? Why not all? Occam's razor requires I should not believe things without evidence. There is evidence of a dreaming state,there isn't of matrix-style simualtaion.

You remind me of the person who wants to believe the email they received purporting to give them $5 million dollars is true because the easiest explanation is that it is true because the email says it's true. However, if that person were fooled every single day by similar emails perhaps the more plausible explanation is that they're being fooled yet again.

You have no evidence I am being fooled. The e-mail story isn't convincing. i receive far too many such emails for them all to be true, so the simplest explanation is that they are all false.

A defense of, "Simply because I get fooled by similar emails every day doesn't mean this isn't true" will change the fact that you're most likely being fooled into believing something that is false is true.

There is no analogy. You can't demonstrate that I am being fooled all the time.

That doesn't mean it is in fact false. But it does mean the balance is not equal. Your experience and propensities tip the balance.

Evidence of being fooled by one thing is not evidence I am being fooled by something else.1Z 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

Sorry for breaking into an ongoing conversation. I think that what both of you are ignoring is the fact that:

1) Occam's razor is not a natural law; it is a human made construct which, in many but not all situations, leads us to a correct answer.

True but irrelevant. Abandoning the razor does not prove the simulation argument, because there are and infinite number of scenenarios, most of them baroquely complex, which match the facts, and without the razor there is not way of choosing between them.1Z 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Even if we assume that the simulating world can be analyzed via Occam's razor, it is nearly always simpler to assume that your world is not a simulation, even when your world is in fact a simulation.

3) Any use of logic within the simulation can be manipulated by the creators of the simulation so that it is actually illogical, but in such a way that no one realizes that it is illogical. (It is logical to assume that the creators of the simulation would have the ability to make such alterations, as they would have as much time as they needed to make them and total access to the simulation itself. The only way to get around this logic is to say that the creators of the simulation are fooling me, and everyone who is reading this, thus proving my point.)

True, but most of the arguments in favour of simulation require us to infer from what is going on "inside" to what is going on "outside". For instance, we are supposed to take certain phenomena to be the result of limited processing power, If we are being fooled about logic, computers, or anything else, we cannot make such inferences. Therefore there is no argument to the effect that a simulation is actually likely rather than merely possible, We don't have the grounds to argue its likelihood.1Z 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This by no means proves that this world is a simulation, but it certainly proves that we can’t know definitely that it isn’t.

I have not been arguing that simulation is impossible, I have been arguing that there is no evidence for it.1Z 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Lord Volton brought up points similar to several of my own below.

(68.189.173.185 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Occam's Razor Revisited

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." -Occam's Razor

I think there is a tendency by some of the readers to focus solely on "the simplest solution tends to be the best one" and ignore "all things being equal."

What does "all things being equal" mean?

It means that two or more rival hypotheses are supported by the same evidence.

An equalized environment would be one in which we've never been fooled by a simulation. Then the simple solution would be that we're not in a simulated world. A world without dreams would fall within this category.

All things are already equal, in that the purported evidence for simulation can be explained without Matrix-style simulation, dreaming included.

Dreaming is explained by simulation.

I am not saying all forms of simulation are impossible.

Perhaps you're caught up in "Matrix style". Everything is always simulted -- it's just a question of who is simulating. Your reality is a simulation 24/7. Even if it's just your brain. Your brain keeps simulating while you sleep.

So you say

If none of us were ever fooled into believing a simulated world is real then I'd agree that the tenaciously clinging to Occam's Razor could make sense.

Dreaming is evidence for a dream state. It isn't evidence for a matrix-style simulation. Nothing else is either. Occam's razor only ceases to apply where you have evidence that can only be explained by one theory. There is no evidence that can only be explained by a Matrix theory. therefore the razor should be tenaciously clung to.

Dreaming is evidence of a simulation. Let's call it by it's true name. You place your faith in reality, but you have no evidence it's real.

I have no evidence it is unreal. That is where the burden lies.

Aside from your senses which are not trustworthy.

Descartes

already dealt with your fickle senses at greath length. The simple solution is not to trust your senses, because your senses have proven to be false every single day of your life when you close your eyes.

You cross the road with your eyes shut, I with my eyes open. We will continue the discussion on the other side. If you make it.

Since we're not I view it as a defense mechanism to avoid further inquiry.

Dreaming only shows that simulation is possible, not that it is happening. The existence of one kind of simulation is not evidence for the existence of other kinds, any more than the existence of grey elephants is evidence for pink elephants.

We're getting closer. Once you admit that simulations are common then you have to take much more seriously the possibility that your waking life could also be simulated. Don't get too caught up in "Matrix style" since we're still investigating whether it's a simulation at all, rather than assuming it's not a simulation. And that's the danger of your position -- it negates further inquiry. You simply stand back with your arms folded saying, "Prove it!"

Think about why you disbelieve what you disbelieve. Because there is no evidence for it? because it is unproven?

Unless this is just about debating the issue rather than resolving it. And the resolution will not come from this debate. It will require all of us to spend time analyzing the environment and looking for clues to determine if it's live or if it's Memorex.

We can only find such clues if we know what to look for -- something that could only be produced by a simulation, and not some alternative cause.

It doesn't mean it's a simulation -- it just means Occam's Razor isn't going to save you. It means you need to put on your running shoes and start looking around. There is no short cut.

If you know of some evidence that definitely indicates a simulation , not just the possibility of a simulation, let's hear it.

If you know of some evidence that it's NOT a simulation and not just the possibility of being real, let's hear it.

The burden isn't on me.

You can start by explaining why everything is made of nothing, why we should trust our senses when they regularly fool us, the observer effect, etc.

"everything is made of nothing" -- not really true, and anyway, why not?

"why we should trust our senses when they regularly fool us" -- there's no alternative. In any case, you think there is sensory evidence to prove a simulation, so you are trusting your sense. Why shouldn't I trust mine?

" the observer effect, etc" -- Not really true, and anyway, why not?

You can see how silly it is to start from the assumption that you're right. Rather than assuming we don't know the correct answer until we investigate it. I don't know if it's a simulation, but I'm interested in finding out. I wonder if you really want to know the truth? A wise cookie once said, "The first step toward finding the truth is realizing you don't have it."

You have to start from the assumption that you are right about something. The pro-simulation arguments assume things about the behaviour of computers, simulations and so on.

For whatever reason people wish to ignore the fact that they are fooled. That means things are not equal. You live in a world that simulates things, your brain. Or at least we think it's our own brains.

Of course, the simple solution is not always the correct solution. A complicated solution could be the correct one. We don't need to debate that point since we don't even get there based on the logic of the statement itself.

If you abandon the Razor, you might as well say we are in a simulation of a simulation of a simulation....1Z 13:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been in a simulation of a simulation of a simulation.

Not a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation? You see what you did there? You assumed there were only three levels because you were applying occam's razor. Otherwise you might as well have claimed a million levels of simulation

It wasn't three levels (see below). And if you want to use this as an example of Occam's Razor working - it failed miserably. I assumed, like most of the readers, that I wasn't being fooled. And when I awoke again I assumed that I wasn't being fooled. And then when I awoke again I assumed I wasn't being fooled. That assumption was wrong.

Although it was a just one simulation. You dream you wake up, and then wake up again, and then wake up again. That's possible since I've experienced it. It's called a false awakening. Whether that's the case for this place I have no idea. However, since I have experienced simulations that seem as real as this place I don't willy nilly assume I'm above being fooled or that a simulation that keeps track of time and runs very smoothly is not possible. If this is a simulation I have to give the designers credit since seemingly intelligent people are dead set against even the idea of it being a simulation. Maybe we just fall in love with ourselves and our dreams so much so that it's impossible to pull away from them, not unlike religion?

I don't assume I have some personal immunity to being fooled. I point out that the simulation hypothesis is unlikely given our normal evidentiary practices.

On the flipside, perhaps we were all born into the truth and everything is exactly as it seems? There are an infinite number of possible explanations and the odds of that being the truth are as good as any other. One in an infinity. Not bad odds?

Simpler explanations have higher odds [1]

The contrarian will write, "It's either a simulation or it's not". Only two possibilities exist for this discussion, not an infinite number. And then the response will be, "Well, it could be both." If you're a simulant then it's as real for you as real gets.

Unless some proves to me that it is a simulation, like you keep promissing. You can't have it both ways.1Z 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Peterdjones, I believe you're missing the point of this discussion. The purpose of this debate is not so much as proving one person right and another wrong, but trying to figure why is one right and another wrong. I think it's fair to say that the popular view is this universe we live in is real, but why do we think it's real? Is it necessarily real if we loosen the assumption of it being real? The burden of prove isn't at proving it to be a simulation, but proving our assumption to be correct.

We think it is real because that is what guidelines like Occam's razor suggest. No reason to abandon them has been offered. The burden of proof is on proving the Simulation hypothesis, precisely because the SH is generally believed to be false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 1Z 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The importance is not in what we believe in but how we come to such believe. 66.254.247.177 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're not a simulant then there is a higher level of real. But the contrarian will point out that we could create a robot and insert the simulant into that higher level world making his previous existence a simulation, etc. And then there are possibilities the human mind cannot conceive, since presumably if it is a simulation the laws of physics could be quite different in other worlds. I agree that it seems that whether it's a real or a simulation is a true false statement, but explanations for how either of those states are true or false have an infinite number of explanations. Even in the "apparent real world" religions have come up with a myriad of storylines to explain our existence.

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

"Occam's razor" section in the article

"Critics of this analysis point out that all things are not equal, as evidenced by our dreams,"

This is irrelevant. "all things being equal" means "all hypotheses being supported by the same evidence". The Simulation Hypothesis is not being countered by a hypothesis that we are never in any kind of virtual reality. It is being countered by the hypothesis that only the generally accepted kinds of simulation --dreaming, computer games -- exist. And both of *those* hypotheses *are* supported by the same evidence, since there is no specific evidence for the Simulation Hypothesis.

and that even if they were equal Occam's Razor is not a natural law.

Irrelevant and redundant. It has already been stated to be a heuristic rule.

Often the complex answer is the correct one.

Galileo

's observation that the Earth was round and not flat is an example where the simple answer was wrong.

Not a fair comparisons, since those theories were supported by specific evidence. Moreover, we cannot simply ignore the Razor.1Z 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We've debated this thoroughly and I think it's an accurate representation of the criticisms of Occam's Razor. And that is why it was prefaced with "critics of this analysis" which separates it from the other view. Which is better than simply erasing the entire section -- it lets the readers know that there are differing opinions and leaves it up to the reader to determine whether they think Occam's Razor is a legit defense.

Contrary arguments need a minimum of plausability. The point that O's R is not a natural law is utterly irrelevant. Everyone knows it isn't and it doesn't change anything.

And what about re-writing the dreams section? 1Z 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The new "dreaming" section is a bit better, but this sentence

"In order to demonstrate the possibility that what we accept as reality is a simulation there should be some evidence that we could point to in order to extrapolate that it is in fact an illusion. Dreaming is one such ..."

Still makes a completely false assertion. We simply cannot "extrapolate" that we are being fooled when we are awake from the fact that we are being fooled in dreams. It is like extrapolating pink elephants from grey elephants.1Z 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that all these arguments about Occam's Razor are in fact superfluous and therefore somewhat irrelevant. We seem to be treating Occam's Razor as if it were an actual verifiable physical law, rather than the simplistic rule of thumb that it is. In discussing the simulation argument, we should concentrate on physical laws which are verifiable within the reality or sumulation we inhabit, rather than spending time on assumed but ultimately unverifiable hypotheses. Sometimes Occam's Razor does not work. The Earth is not flat, and the sun does not circle the Earth. Occam's Razor is a good starting point, but is not the be all and end all of scientific knowledge.--TonyFleet 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If we didn't apply the "simplistic rule of thumb", we wouldn't have any natural laws...or rather, we would have so many rival theories we wouldn't know where to turn. I have acknowledged all along that the razor is not infallible, the point is that we are worse off without it. Its critics do not have anything better as a replacement. Let's suppose for the sake of argument something that is pretty nearly true: there is no physical evidence for or against the SH. What should we then believe? 1Z 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Grr... (Very Long, sorry)

Ultimately, there is no absolute truth and no absolute falsehood. It is all contextual. It is entirely possible to make up an arithmetic where 2 + 2 = 5; we don't because it has no relationship to the world we see around us, it just doesn't behave like that. What we do is posit laws and principles which seem to be 'obvious' from what we observe around us, and use logic and mathematics to make predictions. Sometimes the predictions are correct, and we accept the laws and principles as 'valid for the moment until something better comes along'; sometimes the predictions are slightly out, and we go back to modify the laws and principles and try again; and sometimes the predictions are so off the mark that all we can do is to chuck out the original laws and principles and start again. This is the scientific method; it doesn't guarantee truth, but it's as good a tool as we're likely to get.

Occam's Razor is a useful device which guides you in selecting Laws and Principles in the first place. It is useful, in that it is an example of how the scientific method has come up with a 'law' which appears to work, and makes useful predictions in other contexts. That by itself does not mean that it is correct, nor that it can't be modified or even chucked out altogether. There are many cases where, if we use the simplistic explanation offered via 'Occam's Razor', we would get the wrong answer. Take for example a coke can out of the fridge, which gets condensation on it. When children are asked "What is this water on the side of the can?", the most popular answer is "The can is sweating", i.e. the water is coming through. Their 'principle' in this case is that somehow there are tiny holes in the can letting the water out. Thsi is simple, and if we offer the alternative 'Actually there are billions of water molecules in the air around us in a gaseous state, rushing around at high speeds, and when these molecules hit the side of the can, some of them stick and change in state from gas to liquid, transferring some of their kinetic energy to the metal can and heating it up". If children knew about Occam's Razor, thay would claim that our explanation is long-winded, convoluted and confusing: it hypothesises all sorts of extra concepts that they can't see, feel or touch.

In this context, i.e. Simulated Reality, using Occam's Razor provides us with some interesting arguments both for the hypothesis, and against it. At the end of the day, it's like the God hypothesis; some people will use Occam's razor and say the simplest solution to why the universe exists is that is created by God - hypothesising his existence is simple- it explains everything; others will say Occams Razor would rule out God because you are hypothesising a hugely improbable and inexplicable entity. I personaly think, because of the parallel with the God Hypothesis, that using Occam's Razor is at best an irrelevance; it is used by some however as a diversionary tactic, tantamount to philisophical vandalism. It clearly can't be used as proof, because it is not well-formulated enough to be testable; you might cite it as evidence, but then as we have seen above, the interpretation of what is, and is not, 'simple' is highly subjective. If you believe the world is simulated, then Occam's Razor supports your belief, because it offers a simple solutionm to the confusion you see around you. If you believe that it is not, then Occam's Razor supports that too, because in order to underpin the thesis you have to hypothesise a hugely complex computer, programmed with a complexity currently unimaginable. Any debate is pointless, becuse it's about belief, not evidence.

I vote we put in one sentence only about Occam's Razor to say that it has been used by various authors (name one or two) to support the argument, while at the same time, it has been used by other authors (name some) to deny the argument, and leave it at that. After all, this should not be about what editors think, or believe, or what evidence they think they have for their beliefs (about simulated reality, Occam's Razor or anything else), it's should be about what has already been written about the topic by others.

That's my two penn'orth. I'm going for a lie down now.

--TonyFleet 09:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who has argued for the SH using OR and I don't see how it can be done. The idea that there must, apriori, be equal numbers of authorities on either side of any given question is naive. 1Z 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice you didn't directly answer my question, and I notice that (like LordVolton) you have spent at a lot of time attacking the idea that the razor delivers absolute truth, although I have never subscribed to it, and have explicitly rejected.

Your claim about the falsifiability of the razor is irrelevant, since it is agreed by all parties that it is not a natural law. Your attempted counterexamples commit the usual fallacy of ignoring the "all other things being equal" clause. All these issues are discussed on the occam's razor page. 1Z 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

'All other things being equal' is the ultimate get out clause, as things are never equal, only similar; the only thing which is completely isomorphic to an object is the object itself. The point is OR does not tell us anything one way or another, and if you re-read my suggestion I did not say that we should exactly balance one against the other, merely that we should put in some references to support both points of view, if any can be found, if not, then we certainly shouldnt suggest we can. However, I disagree that there are not people on both sides...

For starters try:

Sturman argues (actually he doesn't he merely states) that the conclusion that we are living in a simulated world inside another world is a violation of Occam's razor.

and also:

In a rebuttal of Sturman's argument on the Simulism Website it is argued that things are easier to explain if the world were a simulation, because " it would be against Occam's razor if we would assume that the world is not a simulation".

However, the point I was originally making was that OR is actually totally and utterly irrelevant to the SH, as there are no competing theories, other than 'reality is a simulation' or 'reality is a reality'; I for one cannot see what is equal, and what is simpler here, and I cannot imagine anyone who could. If OR cant help us to decide between these cases, then we shouldnt mention it at all ... like a lot of the other stuff on this article, it should be ditched.

--TonyFleet 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Equality refers to evidence, it is not a metaphysical claim.

"However, the point I was originally making was that OR is actually totally and utterly irrelevant to the SH, as there are no competing theories, other than 'reality is a simulation' or 'reality is a reality'";

Your comment is bizarre. Those are clearly two(2) theories, and one is clearly simpler than the other.

What is equal is the evidence. Unless you find a way of escaping from our reality, the evidence for either hypothesis is the sum total of facts about the world as we witness it. So the evidence is equal, so "things are equal". 1Z 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

astThe counter-argument at simulism just baldly states

"However, there are things that are actually easier to explain when the world is a simulation, such as what the origin of the universe is, the purpose of life, etc."

However, simulism is no a particularly compelling answer to any of these questions, as this article comprehensively demonstrates. (Moreover, the response confuses "simple answer" with "answer that does no multiply entities". It probably takes a lot of entities to simulate a universe. Oh, and it only defers explanation, like vonDanikenism. Where did the aliens come from? Where did the Programmers In The Sky come from?) 1Z 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"In any case, Occam's razor is a heuristic--essentially a piece of advice--and not capable of introducing a contradiction. In other words, this argument against simulism is exceedingly weak."

If it really is "exceedingly weak" we are in trouble, since all our science is based on it. Maybe I should try asking them what they have got that is better. 1Z 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting case, but one which, I think is misguided. Any collection of evidence and presentation of it, is never as objective as you imply. People set out to prove or disprove hypotheses (even if only subconsciously). If you ask for evidence that the SH is true, there is no absolute evidence 'out there' for it or against it, the evidence is merely what the protagonist or antagonist of the argument chooses to collect and to present.

In addition, as I said earlier, the use of OR in any argument of this nature is always subjective; one person's simplicity is another person's complexity. How do you decide whether Creation is 'simpler' than Evolution - you can't, otherwise there would not be loads of Creationists cluttering up the place. I may disagree with them vehemently, and part of the reason I do is that I think OR tells me that Evolution is simpler, has fewer assumptions and is a cleaner explanation. On the other hand, I have been involved with arguers who have argued that the hypothesis that God created everything is simpler, based on fewer assumptions, and is a cleaner explanation. They might not be citing OR explicitly, but are using the principles behind it to guide their choice of hypothesis. I think the parallel with the God hypothesis and the SH is crucial; I think we should learn from the debate with creationists. Once belief of whatever nature infects a topic, it is very difficult to conduct a rational, dispassionate debate on it.

I go back to my original point. This Wiki should be not be concerned with arguing a case one way or the other, it should be concerned with documenting what people think, and not judging whether they are right. For example, the section on OR might well say that 'OR has been used by A, B & C to attempt to refute/support the SH arguing that ... ; however this is hotly debated by X and Y who state ... Z has pointed out that any use of OR is irrelevant in this context'. That feels to me more like an academically credible piece of work. The reader gets a summary and can go and read the original arguments if they wish. Given what I have said in my opening paragraph, that aim is incredibly difficult to achieve for a single writer working alone; however, I continue to think (this is my personal belief) that the entire Wiki-isation of knowledge is our best hope of achieving this in some measure.

I would really like to get this article on a firm footing.

--TonyFleet 09:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaining that OR falls short of some theoretical standard of objectivity is pointless unless you have something better.

If you think the application of OR to SH is debatable, you need to explain in terms of specifics, not vague analogies.

I have added refs to people who think OR is applicable. If you know of anyone who actually take the contrary view. be my guest.

The reader is left better informed if they are told why people think what they think. Philosophy is all about arguments.

1Z 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As we've debated the utility of Occam's Razor I started wondering why we have dreams, since that leads to potential skepticism about our own environment. Surely if we were building a simulated world in which "realism" was important then it would seem getting rid of dreams would be beneficial to reduce the number of participants who could start wondering if they're enjoying reality or being fooled by a simulation.

So why do we dream?

I'm not interested in the biological explanations of dreams, but rather, their utility in a simulated environment. I'm not trying to debate whether we're in a simulation in this thread, but I am curious if it is a wise design decision to include dreams in a simulated world.

A few explanations come to mind:

1) In a simulated world where the participants are "plugged in" or otherwise connected to the simulated environment in that world their minds will continue to work 24/7. So placing them in a dark space where nothing happens for 8 hours would not be enjoyable. However, it seems like you could just fast forward through that and wake them up feeling refreshed.

2) In the "real world" people dreamt. And dreaming was an important part of their existence. Leaving out dreaming would be like removing gender distinctions. It would not be a realistic simulation.

3) It's a distributed environment and since dreams tend be to lower resolution it allows for processing power savings. So when people are dreaming others are awake. This would be plausible in a world where processesing power is an issue.

Several people have demanded evidence or asked for someone to prove that they're in a simulated reality. I think the easiest path to silence the critics is to simply create one. And that is exactly where video games are headed.

It will not prove that this reality is simulated. However, it will prove that we can create them in addition to your own brain creating them. And that we can fool you in the same way your own brain fools you.

And that moves it further from a crazy theory into harsh reality.

Well...no it doesn't really. It's already agreed that simulation is possible. So it does nothing to add to its likelihood.1Z 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you make my point. It is argued that a simulation is "possible". This would change that statement to simulations are a reality. This wouldn't effect our reality but erase the debate about whether simulations are possible. Again, I think this is erased by our dreams. And that therefore effects the probability that others may have been able to do the same thing. If it were impossible for us to create them then the probability of our offspring creating them goes down. If we are able to create them then the likelihood that they will create them goes up and the possibility that we're in one right now increases.

The only problem with my analysis is that the future would be simulated and that would not be relevant to our outer world. This is a flaw that I think Bostrom hasn't addressed in his analysis. The probability of what happens down the line in a simulated world has no effect on the outer world. The fact the our offspring might create simulated worlds effects the probability in general (for others who will be in those worlds) but not necessarily our own.

Here is another way to analyze it. Imagine we're debating whether a major U.S. city will be annihilated by a nuclear weapon. And so far it has only be argued that nuclear weapons are possible. And then we discover that all the elements to create a nuclear weapon exist and it's only a matter of time. And then I state that once a nuclear weapon exists the likelihood of a city being blown up goes up and then you state, "Not really because it's been argued they're possible". There is a difference between possible, probable, and existing.

For me, if we eventually create worlds as real as this one I would be far less comfortable about our perceived reality. That doesn't mean I would conclude it's a simulation, but I would know that it wouldn't require God incarnate to create it. I don't know if this is a simulation, but I believe there is enough evidence supporting it as a possibility that we need to embark upon a serious inquiry.

How far away is that day? Well, researchers at the university of Texas have figured out how to attach

).

Remember, everything you experience is simply your neurons firing.

Your eyes are biological equivalents of cameras and your ears biological equivalents of microphones. They send signals to your brain which are then translated into what you perceive as reality -- a simulation in your head of what is our there in the perceived world.

Just like a picture is not the real thing, the world you see in your mind is a simulated environment conjured up by your mind. For more information on artificial vision research

cochlear implants

.

It is only a matter of time before we create stereoscopic 3D worlds that appear as real as our own. And if we can do it, others can do it too.

(see sensory substitution)

Nick Bostrom spends a lot of time on this eventuality to prove his point, but in my view our own brains accomplish the same task during dreams. However, the pundits who enter these worlds will simply be left saying, "This doesn't prove anything."

And in a twist of irony we might have them saying it in simulated worlds.

"might" = "possible".1Z 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And when they wake up they will probably say, "Well, just because my dreams fool me and that simulated world fooled me doesn't mean there is any evidence I am being fooled this instant. Even if I said that 5 minutes ago and it turned out that I was being fooled".

At that point they're just being hard headed.

People should be hard-headed. And it isn't any evidence they are being fooled. Even the "true believers" don't think they are a billion levels deep in a simulation-of-a-simulation....

And that is why people argued the Earth was flat and believed it without further investigation.

"They laughed at Galilleo..."

People should be level headed and seek the truth. The Earth appeared flat so that was the simple solution. Alas, the simple solution was wrong. It wasn't until someone "proved it" that the hard headed masses finally stopped clinging to their Occam's Razor analysis. Fortunately, we don't need to worry about Occam's Razor in this instance.

We always need to worry about O's R. And if you have proof, let's hear it. All the "evidence" so far produced can be explained by other theories.

so they are applying occam's razor, too.1Z 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because they're not really interested in finding the truth.

I was talking about the people who believe in simualation...

They're more interested in finding ways to avoid searching for it. As another user pointed out, it's not a natural law. Occam's Razor in a lucid dream gets you the same wrong answer based on the same flawed reasoning.

Yes, but you are in a worse mess without it.

Why? Because things are not equal.

Of course not. There is evidence of dreaming. There isn't evidence for simulation of waking life.

And even if they were that doesn't absolve us from examining our environment for clues simply because we want things to be simple.

No it doesn't. But no-one has yet suggested a "clue" that can only be explained by simulation.1Z 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

more editing suggestions

Altering the text so that it's essentially a removal of the original entry and replaced with a new conclusion is akin to simply removing it. If you have a different analysis then feel free to add a paragraph that makes your point.

Lordvolton 01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The original text needed major re-writing because of the informal tone alone.

If you want to rewrite it to look like something that belongs in an encyclopedia, I will consider adding a paragraph.1Z 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine a few other scenarios: boredom. Without dreams where really exciting things happen a simulation of the "real world" is just a little too real. I know that a lot of us like to play video games to escape into more exciting environments.

I was discussing this with a friend and he had an interesting take on it from a computer gaming design perspective. He stated that he would include dreams as a backdoor. I believe quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle might fall within this same category. Translated into plain English this means that there would be a method whereby the designers could fix mishaps and explain it away as "you were just dreaming" or a miracle occurs because every outcome is theoretically possible and explainable by the laws of physics within the simulated world.

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

It's been edited by several people, but I think you might miss the point. Bostrom goes to great mathematical lengths to determine that we're most likely in a simulated reality. The biggest problem is that he is speculating on what future humans might do. The fact that we dream doesn't need a citation, unless you think dreaming is unique?

Should we cite to an article on dreaming being a universal experience we all share? It's seem obvious to me that dreaming is a common experience.

If you dream then you're fooled. Unless someone wants to argue that they're always aware they're dreaming?

The self-evident fact that people are fooled by their dreams highlights the futility of Occam's Razor. A group of people who are regularly being fooled and cannot easily distinguish reality from illusion every 24 hours should be very skeptical when it comes to proclamations, such as, "Ah, things are just as they seem. Otherwise it would be a complex solution."

If we're being fooled every 24 hours by our brains then it's not such a complex solution that we're being fooled all the time. It's a rather simple one, taking into account the observable evidence of people constantly being fooled.

Therefore, the fact that we have a pattern of simulated realities being processed by a single brain fooling us is a a stronger argument than we might be fooled by the speculative actions of future generations. We don't need probability theory or citations when all we have to do is ask, "Do you dream?" And I think the universal answer is yes. And the next question, "Do you ever think it's reality?" And I believe the universal answer is yes.

If we weren't being fooled every night that an illusion is reality then Occam's Razor might be applicable. I'm sure that people who refuse to seriously consider this issue apply Occam's Razor within their dreams to their great disappointment. Well, unless it's a nightmare then they're happy it's a simulation.

Lordvolton 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

________________________

The fact that we dream doesn't need mathemetical support, like Bostrom's argument -- but it doesn't demonstrate the same conclusion either. The fact that we dream does not mean we are in a simulation when we are awake.

The proof is needed is not that we dream at all, but that dreaming has some connection with other kinds of illusion or simulation.

The objection to occam's razor makes, -- for about the 124,679th time -- the fallacy of taking it to be more than a heuristic. It is essentially a straw-man.

The idea that when awake we are bing fooled by something other than out brains obviously is more complex. The "something other" is an entity multiplied beyond necessity.

Occam's razor doesn't apply to dreams because the process of waking up is a piece of specific counter-evidence.

'"Other things being equal"

The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. A simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.'

it does apply to waking because there is no equivalent. OR does not tell us that the wakng world is necessarily real, only that we should assume it is real in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary. And there is no definite evidence to the contrary.1Z 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

____________________________

"The fact that we dream does not mean we are in a simulation when we are awake."

True, it just means that you can't tell the difference! In other words, you cannot rely on your senses because they're so easily manipulated by your own brain. It doesn't need to be a computer it could just be your brain!

I obviously can tell the difference on waking. If no-one could tell the difference, there would be no evidence for dreaming.1Z 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think "waking up" is meaningful go read the wikipedia page on false awakening. We cannot even be sure we're awake.

Equally, we cannot be sure that dreaming is a form of simulation,. The evidence that it is comes to us through our supposedly reliable senses during our supposedly waking hours.

It doesn't need to be "something other".

That is why I object to the wording "usually computer simulated" at the start of this article. It doesn't require a computer to create a simulation that fools us. All that is required is a human brain.

Lordvolton 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

____________

Explain how you can be sure that dreaming is simulation when you cannot rely on your senses, and you do not even know you are awake. 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

____________

Clever. Very clever!

I don't. And I can't.

The act of "waking up" is what used to differentiate dreaming for reality, until I started having "false awakenings." The false awakening discussion page on wikipedia is an interesting read. Most of my false awakening were very short lived.

In other words, I never left the bed. Until recently.

One person in the discussion section talks about waking up and going through their entire morning routine and being stuck in morning traffic and then waking up. The most I've ever done is taken a shower and then woke up only to find I hadn't brushed my teeth, showered, etc.

What makes something "real" versus "simulated" is the act of "waking up". However, I've come to realize that those distinctions might be meaningless.

If we never had dreams it would be a lot easier to put faith into reality being as it appeared. However, when "reality" and "dreams" are almost impossible to distinguish it makes it a lot more difficult to make that leap of faith.

And it does require a fair bit of faith to overlook dreams and the uncanny ability of what appears to be a single brain (I admit it could very well be much more) to create environments very similar to what we call "reality".

Of course, skeptics who embrace the simulation hypothesis might say this whole argument is just all of us realizing we're dreaming. I haven't come to a conclusion on the topic so I cannot agree with them - yet.

Excellent point though!

Lordvolton 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

____________________

You are all missing the point. Wikipedia has a policy of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That means that you cannot, no matter how hard you justify it, put stuff in here which is an original contribution, or what you regard as self-evident. The only citation for the stuff on dreams is internal to the text, and, I would argue, it is possible to disagree with the argument put forward: e.g. Why is it self-evident? To use this as evidence that we are living in a simulation, everyone would have to be fooled by dreams, all of the time, otherwise the argument doesnt work. Check out

; these people are not fooled by dreams. This is why it needs a citation.

Stuff on Dreaming might say:

: "How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?".

Chalmers (2003) discusses the dream hypothesis, and notes that there this comes in two distinct forms:

• that he is currently dreaming, in which case many of his beliefs about the world are incorrect
• that he has always been dreaming, in which case the objects he perceives actually exist, albeit in his imagination. [2].

Both the

noted that his own thinking led him to be convinced of his own existence, the existence of the argument itself is testament to the possibility of its own truth.

(by the way, I am not sure I agree with the argument, but you get the point).

--TonyFleet 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much more what one would expect to see in an encyclopedia article.1Z 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

____________

I'm familiar with Lucid Dreaming although I've never read that a lucid dreamer was NEVER fooled as you're claiming. If you're serious and not simply trying to make a point please provide the citation/link.

Everything I've read states that they are capable of figuring out they are dreaming, not that they've always having or had lucid dreams their entire life. What you apprear to be saying is, "Prove a universal negative!"

In case it isn't clear, allow me to make some ridiculous examples.

I guess we cannot say with any certainty that Santa Clause doesn't really exist since I'd have to be in every corner of the universe to be certain. And therefore since I cannot be certain any claim that Santa Clause is not real is simply original research and content?

[Unless it's quoted in a movie? ;-)]

It's not self-evident because by your standard because I'd have to be EVERYWHERE. But in the real world lots of things are assumed to be self-evident. The sun shines. Wait, how do I know it's shining for everyone if I am not everyone?

Maybe it's not. But for purposes of communication and getting things done we take certain things to be self-evident. However, if you really believe there is someone who has had 100% lucid dreams from birth please bring him or her forward and we'll exempt them.

However, it looks like your real "problem" is form over substance. Since you've no doubt been fooled as has everyone else who is reading this discussion. So it's certainly true for all of us!

On a more serious and I think constructive note:

Descartes a good source and there are probably many other modern day philosophers who would would be willing to go on record that they've been fooled by their dreams. I'm sure Nick Bostrom would be happy to oblige you, but I'm not sure the about Wachowski Brothers. I'm a fan of some of their work, but they're probably only one step removed from our current willy nilly citations to authority.

That said, the Matrix was most peoples introduction to the simulation hypothesis, so perhaps it's fitting.

Lordvolton 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If something is self-evident, is self-evident to a lot of people, and you should easily find citations. Your stuff is OR because it is only self-evident to you 1Z 01:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I have started my own alternative reality at

( NB I will have an opening ceremony when it's ready); I have not given up on this version of the article. However, I would really really like some comment on (a) the focus I have given it at the start, and (b) the rewritten section on Types of Simulated Reality, and (c) someone who can tell me what on earth I can do with all the Philosophy stuff that I spent ages writing then realised I needed to ditch. and (d) the structure. Thanks

--TonyFleet 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need to ditch the philosophy stuff?1Z 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)