Oxford University: 20% Chance We Are in a Computer Simulation

By: Donkey Hotay
Published On: 8/15/2007 3:16:33 PM

Yeah, you read the title right.

Published yesterday in the New York Times Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

You have this little tidbit

Dr. Bostrom doesn't pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. "My gut feeling, and it's nothing more than that," he says, "is that there's a 20 percent chance we're living in a computer simulation."

In essence the theory is that future humans will improve technology to the point where they can run simulations on entire civilizations.  Think: The Sims meets the Matrix.


If this theory is correct, we would not be "plugged in" to a matrix with real bodies and stolen minds, we simply would only exist in 1's and 0's.

If you think about it, we already run very complex simulations on biological development, weather patterns and many other "natural" occurrences.  Perhaps in 50 or 100 years we will have the processing power (the only thing we currently lack) to run these full civilization simulations.

Here is one last quote, to read the whole article Here's the link

But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom's, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else's computer simulation.

This simulation would be similar to the one in "The Matrix," in which most humans don't realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom's notion of reality, you wouldn't even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.


Comments



Bishop Berkeley (tx2vadem - 8/15/2007 8:59:08 PM)
Bishop Berkeley (circa the 16th century), in his critique on Locke's empiricism, proposed that we cannot know what is only what is perceived.  Only under his theory, our perception is all cordinated by God.  All perception is just an idea in God's infinite mind.  Living life in a computer simulation seems like a variation on that theme. 

As far as probability of that existence being the case, I'm perplexed as to how they would determine that.  Just because we might create super complex devices in the future doesn't mean that we are living in them or that there is a chance that we do.  But that would be pretty awesome to think about.  It would be like when you stand between two mirrors and your reflection goes on infinitely, so there are a million of you.  And if we are in a simulation, what is the purpose of the simulation and what are we simulating?

Oh incedently, this was also the theme of Playstation 2 video game called Star Ocean. 



Does it matter? (Evan M - 8/16/2007 3:22:02 PM)
I feel like this issue is related to the question of free will. If we don't know whether we're in a simlulation, isn't that the same as this being real? I think there's an epistemological theory of Relativity that can be applied. If there is no difference between acceleration and gravity to a person in an elevator, then acceleration and gravity are the same. If there is no difference between being a simulated brain and a real brain to me and my neighbors, then the simulation and reality are the same.


It's true (humanfont - 8/15/2007 9:38:48 PM)
This is a simluation.  Drive as fast as you want the abuser fees arn't real money anyway.  Also we sim controllers thought it would be amusing to see what happened, if we built a giant eyesore in Tysons Corner. I'm only telling you this because our grant ran out so we have to shut  down tomorrow afternoon around 3pm.  Sorry about the whole Bush presdency thing; but we do have to simulate every possible historical permutation; at least you arn't in the Perot sim.


And you could explain... (ericy - 8/16/2007 11:21:40 AM)

Bush's election was caused by a virus that infected the supercomputer cluster on which the simulation was running...


Somebody Out Start The Antivirus Software (norman swingvoter - 8/16/2007 12:41:35 PM)
If this is a computer simulation, somebody out there please start the Antivirus Software, we have a bad software virus down here.


A 20% chance based on "gut feeling"... (Randy Klear - 8/16/2007 1:54:23 PM)
This guy must be looking for a DHS consulting contract.


Or maybe to head the agency! (Lowell - 8/16/2007 2:14:45 PM)
:)


Demoted because of NLS? (Donkey Hotay - 8/16/2007 4:15:23 PM)
that's a shame.  You should thank him for the link and extra traffic.


It was actually promoted AND demoted (Lowell - 8/16/2007 4:18:06 PM)
because of NLS.  Long story...


James Young (Mark - 8/18/2007 12:40:57 AM)
is a tool.

EOM



Oxford University: 20% Chance We Are In A Computer Simulation (soccerdem - 8/16/2007 3:05:32 PM)
This hypothesis reminds me of the final episode of St. Elsewhere, wouldn't you agree?

In any event, I did do the math and came up with 43.7%  But that's employing "gut feeling" math, using the Phillip Dick equations.



Demoted because of Ben? (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/16/2007 10:59:35 PM)
WTF?  And I never use language like that.  I thought this was a great post. 

Sometimes we need to think of something other than politics and how evil the other side is. Imagination, fun, and speculation are play.  Maybe some people need to expand their lives and their consciousness.

Just occasionally the outer fringe of speculative science is fun to contemplate.

Now, do a post on the zero point field theory and I'll be a loyal reader for life.



It wasn't demoted because of Ben. (Lowell - 8/16/2007 11:09:00 PM)
But I thought the commentary on this was getting a bit overheated.  I also thought we'd had enough meta-discussion on this diary...how about some ACTUAL discussion? :)  For instance, have you read Kurzweil's "The Age of Intelligent Machines" and "The Age of Spiritual Machines?"  Mind boggling stuff.


I'm not sure I understand (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/16/2007 11:37:10 PM)
You demoted it because it was getting too much overheated discussion? I don't mean to give you a hard time but I thought lots of comments and even controvery was a good thing?

Anyway, I thought it was an amusing post. 

And thanks for the reading suggestions.  I haven't read those books.  I'll look for them.



If you want to talk about this, (Lowell - 8/17/2007 6:42:06 AM)
give me a call or shoot me an email.  Let's just say that I didn't think the tone of the discussion on this was particularly helpful.


By the way, I would point out (Lowell - 8/17/2007 10:18:07 AM)
that if you like this post so much, you could recommend it or even "promote" it to the front page yourself.