New ID Theory: We made Us

[Mangel]

I was watching a tv program the other day that had an interesting argument for intelligent design. Here is an approximate summary:

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

 

[Mojo]

Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

But there still has to be a "real" reality, and that reality has to have arisen somehow, so we're just back to "who designed the designer" again.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

The largest problem with this is that it's unfalsifiable.

Other than that:

-If we are merely AI presences in a computer simulation, or indeed divorced in any significant way from "actual" reality, why would "our" reality have enough clues to extrapolate the "actual" one? That is to say, why would this simulation, one of an infinite number, accurately represent 2005 and the trajectory of technology at that time? The axiomatic assumptions (if they can be called that) of this hypothesis assume too much.

 

[Upchurch]

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.

Seen it

 

[Mangel]

But there still has to be a "real" reality, and that reality has to have arisen somehow, so we're just back to "who designed the designer" again.

Yes, be that as it may, it doesn't really reject the conclusion drawn from the assumptions.

 

[Tricky]

I was watching a tv program the other day that had an interesting argument for intelligent design. Here is an approximate summary:

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

What does "near infinite" mean? How can you tell when you are almost to infinity? And I am not convinced humanity has that much of a future, at least not in geologic time. We've been here less that 1/100th as long as the dinosaurs. Only our ego says we can last forever.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

I'm sure they can get better. I seriously doubt that we will be able to get to the point that we can convincingly simulate reality. Too much input. Plus, we may be on track for a technological regression, especially if religions have their way. It has happened before.

3.

Umm... what happened to 3?

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.

We have millions, perhaps billions of virtual realities now. They're called books. I promise you that I have been just as deeply into a book as I have to any movie, video game or simulation. Imagination doesn't really take that much tweaking.

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

Nope. I do not accept the assumption that someday we will be able to construct virtual realities that are indistinguishable from reality. Neither do I see virtual realities being able to simulate very human needs. Oh yeah, sex is easy. Let's see one that actually feeds you and cleans up your poop. Mere electronics ain't gonna handle that one. You're gonna need some big honkin' machines using lots of power (another thing we may not have as much of in the future).

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

The assumptions range from far-fetched to absolutely ludicrous. It would make the basis of a good sci-fi novel (which I am quite capable of getting lost in), but as a serious thought experiment, it takes too much suspension of disbelief to be worth pondering.

However, I do see it as a potentially addictive pastime. I think Dennis Miller said of virtual reality, "When some two-hundred pound couch potato can lie around in his virtual reality suit and make love to Paris Hilton, it's gonna make crack cocaine look like menthol cough drops."

 

[Mangel]

Yes, Tricky, you'll note that I acknowledged that to reject the conclusion you just need to reject the assumptions. To reject them isn't all that hard and I wasn't all that interested in debating about what the future will be like.

That's kinda why I wrote some words in caps lock, to EMPHASISE that I WASN'T INTERESTED in defending the assumptions.
BUT, feel free to attack the conclusion without rejecting the assumptions...if you can.

(neutrino_cannon has already done a reasonable job)

 

[jmercer]

I was watching a tv program the other day that had an interesting argument for intelligent design. Here is an approximate summary:

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

Sure. Your preceeding assumptions are based on humanity developing all this capacity and then creating thousands of virtual realities. Fine, I'll accept that as a working premise.

Why would anyone create a reality as mundane as ours is... as opposed to some fantastical universe with magic, PSI, etc? What's the motivation, where's the entertainment value?

 

[neutrino_cannon]

This would be pretty tasty if you added a dash of Solipsism. A sprig of Determinism would go well too.

But yes, the biggest problem I see is that if we are in such a simulation, there's no reason to assume that it would be such a fidelious recreation of a point prior to the simulation, especially one that leaves clues to an accurate idea of what the simulation is like (multi million dollar blockbusters come to mind). Indeed, the part of the premise of the argument requires the large number of artificial realities, which invalidates the assumption that this is a scrupulous recreation of the past.

Other than that I can only wonder why the self-aware entities would not be aware of the fact that the exercise is a simulation, nor why they are only aware of each other through the simulation (ignoring for the claims of supernatural events), or why there would necessarily be more than one self-aware being in the system. These are mere quibbles that attack the nonessential, decorative parts of the argument, and therefore carry little weight in my book.

 

[Roboramma]

Other than that I can only wonder why the self-aware entities would not be aware of the fact that the exercise is a simulation, nor why they are only aware of each other through the simulation (ignoring for the claims of supernatural events), or why there would necessarily be more than one self-aware being in the system. These are mere quibbles that attack the nonessential, decorative parts of the argument, and therefore carry little weight in my book.

I can imagine the creation of self-aware entities in such a simulation. Imagine that you were to create a virtual reality in which you would spend a great deal of your time. In fact, you're some loser who's ordered this virtual reality over the internet because he doesn't have anything better to do. Might be nice if there were other people in there to hang out with. We're not the ones who ordered this simulation, we're just a part of it, embeded in the code.

But there's the thing. Woud you really order a reality that looks like this one? Would anyone? I mean, most of us would make a lot of changes to the world if we could, and now we're positing that there is at least one person, maybe many, who have that power. Why did they design it like this? Why order this reality rather than the one in which you have super powers.

You can't make a "God works in mysterious ways" argument, because the hypothesis is that this world was created by people like us. If so there are a lot of things that I think would be very different.

Like that superman would actually exist.

Another objection that I think others have made is that there is far more here than would be needed for the purposes of such a simulation. Why bother creating a simulation of a universe that's 15 billion or so light years across when you only need one solar system, and maybe a few lights in the sky?

 

[Francois Tremblay]

We do come from intelligent design. From our mother's body.

The simulation argument is not falsifiable, therefore it is meaningless.

In both cases, QED.

 

[Mangel]

I think the argument that "If I made the universe, I wouldn't have made it this way." is a weak one, at best.
It does not challenge that *someone* would create the world this way.

You guys can do better...

 

[Mangel]

Pretty much right, Francois Tremblay.

Ultimately, the claim is not provable and can hence be defeated by Occam's Razor.

 

[Roboramma]

I think the argument that "If I made the universe, I wouldn't have made it this way." is a weak one, at best.
It does not challenge that *someone* would create the world this way.

You guys can do better...

Sure, but my argument isn't that I wouldn't make it this way, it's that no one would make it this way.
Is there anything about this world that can be explained as "well, whoever designed it wanted it like that"? If not, why not? You'd think that whoever designed this world would have actually done something for a reason, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
And again, since the argument posits that this world was designed by people like us, well, you would expect some evidence of that.

I could turn things around a little like this:
Of all the miriade possible worlds that would be created by virtual reality engineers, that vast majority would have some evidence of that fact.
That fact that ours doesn't have any evidence of that fact suggests that it was not designed by them.

Now, my argument may not be perfect, but as I've gone to the trouble of trying to clarify it, if you see a hole in it please be specific as to what it is.

 

[c4ts]

Sure. Your preceeding assumptions are based on humanity developing all this capacity and then creating thousands of virtual realities. Fine, I'll accept that as a working premise.

Why would anyone create a reality as mundane as ours is... as opposed to some fantastical universe with magic, PSI, etc? What's the motivation, where's the entertainment value?

Devoted historical roleplayers.

 

[Mangel]

Sure, but my argument isn't that I wouldn't make it this way, it's that no one would make it this way.
Is there anything about this world that can be explained as "well, whoever designed it wanted it like that"? If not, why not?
.

So...you are saying nothing about this world makes sense. Uh...so, no one would create a universe that would have spherical planets, animals that eat meat, solids and liquids, etc? Is that what you're trying to say? Because that's what you've said. Your argument is that the universe is completely wrong, so no one would make it...which doesn't seem like a logical argument to me.

You'd think that whoever designed this world would have actually done something for a reason, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.

The reason the world would be created like this is because it would be historically accurate to have the world exactly the same as the real universe, just set in the past. THAT is the reason. It would NOT be historically accurate if they carved into the moon "made by Bob" and THAT is why we wouldn't see that sort of thing happening.

And again, since the argument posits that this world was designed by people like us, well, you would expect some evidence of that. I could turn things around a little like this:
Of all the miriade possible worlds that would be created by virtual reality engineers, that vast majority would have some evidence of that fact.

An assumption. This assumption contradicts the assumptions made in the original claim. I'm not arguing about the validity of the original assumptions.

 

[Roboramma]

So...you are saying nothing about this world makes sense. Uh...so, no one would create a universe that would have spherical planets, animals that eat meat, solids and liquids, etc? Is that what you're trying to say? Because that's what you've said. Your argument is that the universe is completely wrong, so no one would make it...which doesn't seem like a logical argument to me.

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that nothing is explained by the fact that someone would make it that way. Maybe I misphrased what I was trying to say, sorry.
I'll try to say it better. Everything we see in this world is either well explained by natural processes, or certainly not better explained by the idea that someone would have wanted it that way.
Spherical planets are a bi-product of the way gravity works, not of human minds liking spherical planets. And I haven't seen any evidence of any thing in this universe whose existence we can explain by saying "people like that".

The reason the world would be created like this is because it would be historically accurate to have the world exactly the same as the real universe, just set in the past. THAT is the reason. It would NOT be historically accurate if they carved into the moon "made by Bob" and THAT is why we wouldn't see that sort of thing happening.

Okay. So why would they want to make a historically accurate world? Why would anyone, who could make any world they wanted to, make one that was historically accurate?
I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Maybe it even would, but thousands of times? Please note what I say below regarding the fact that this is not an attempt to challenge your initial assumptions.

An assumption. This assumption contradicts the assumptions made in the original claim. I'm not arguing about the validity of the original assumptions.

Actually it doesn't. The original assuption is that techology would allow us to create a world identical to a past one, not that one would be created. The other assumption said "We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities."
Niether of these is called into question when asking whether or not it would be done.

To make the argument we need to do more than just assume that it could be done, we need to show that it would be done. I don't see any reason to believe that if such virtual realities were created, there would be any accurate models of the past created. So that's where the argument falls apart for me.

Now if you'd like to argue with my assuption that the vast majority of virtual worlds would have some evidence of the fact that they were created by humans, you must show one of two things:
1. That the humans that created them would try to make them appear undesigned.
2. That what ever goals the humans had in creating those worlds would be best served by a world that didn't show any evidence of being created with any goal in mind.
Personally I find both unlikely.

 

[Mangel]

Okay, so you are saying:
1. Everything we see is explainable by nature as we know it. If there is something unexplainable then this would indicate flaws in reality, which would hence indicate the reality we find ourselves in might be fake.

Well...I'm glad you've mastered knowledge of all natural laws and easily come to terms with how light can be massless yet have momentum, how time distorts in intense gravity fields, and how magnetic and gravity fields affect things without touching them. That must be refreshing to have supreme knowledge.
On the other hand, if you don't know the answers to all mysteries of the universe, I guess you can't lay them claim that everything is explainable.

More to the point, what if gravity IS an artificial construct created by the entities who've constructed this reality. The fact that YOU don't recognise it for what it is doesn't change its artificial nature. Are you even capable of concieving an existence without gravity?

2. People might not create this reality, even though they could.

I don't think I need to prove that people would do it. I should think it would be self evident. Are you they kind of person to think that no one would ever kill themself? That no one would ever commit a terrorist act? In a world of billions of people, the argument that "Maybe no one would do it" is as weak as a straw house.

Here's an idea, why don't you think of any activity that humans are easily capable of, yet no one would ever do.

 

[Darat]

Devoted historical roleplayers.

Or perhaps it's part of a new Microsoft Virtual reality.... so bad you'd almost think it was real..

Slightly more serious but still using Microsoft - perhaps it's a simulation of Bill Gate's life - you get to be Bill Gates in this world, will you make the same choices as he did that led to his eventual godhood? Given the popularity of "alternative history" novels and stories I could see that being an explanation for a boring real-world simulator.

 

[Roboramma]

Okay, so you are saying:
1. Everything we see is explainable by nature as we know it. If there is something unexplainable then this would indicate flaws in reality, which would hence indicate the reality we find ourselves in might be fake.

Once again, no.
Not everything is easily explainable by nature. Everything that we see (as in all observable evidence) is either explainable by what we know or does not support the case that humans designed the world.

There are a lot of things that we know about the world. I don't see that any of them offer evidence that they were designed by people. There are a number of things that we don't know about the world, I don't see that there is any evidence that they will be better explained by the idea that they were designed by people.

Okay? Feel free to suggest that they are or would.

That is, just because we don't know how something works or why it is the way that it is, isn't evidence of (conversely isn't explained better by) human design.

Well...I'm glad you've mastered knowledge of all natural laws and easily come to terms with how light can be massless yet have momentum, how time distorts in intense gravity fields, and how magnetic and gravity fields affect things without touching them. That must be refreshing to have supreme knowledge.
On the other hand, if you don't know the answers to all mysteries of the universe, I guess you can't lay them claim that everything is explainable.

Please point out where I said everything is explainable. In fact, I'll do you one better:

Everything we see in this world is either well explained by natural processes, or certainly not better explained by the idea that someone would have wanted it that way.

Bolding is not in the original message.
That does the exact opposite of suggesting that everything is explainable. I make allowance that there are things that we can't yet explain, but they don't support a human designer any better than they support the idea that this was all caused by natural processes.
Which is to say that those things that we don't know anything about don't offer an explanation of anything, or are they explained by anything.

More to the point, what if gravity IS an artificial construct created by the entities who've constructed this reality. The fact that YOU don't recognize it for what it is doesn't change its artificial nature. Are you even capable of conceiving an existence without gravity?

Maybe it is, but I have no reason to believe it.

Which is what my entire argument comes down to. If the world were created by human designers there would be something about it that offered evidence of that fact. It would not look identical to what we would expect to see if the world were not created by human designers.
Yet this world is what we (with limited knowledge admittedly) expect to see without any designer.

2. People might not create this reality, even though they could.

I don't think I need to prove that people would do it. I should think it would be self evident. Are you they kind of person to think that no one would ever kill themselves? That no one would ever commit a terrorist act? In a world of billions of people, the argument that "Maybe no one would do it" is as weak as a straw house.

Here's an idea, why don't you think of any activity that humans are easily capable of, yet no one would ever do.

Two points, one is that your argument doesn't rely on the assumption that one person would do this, but that thousands would. Two, of course people kill themselves, it's not a very strange fact.
But when you said in the original post:
"4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities."
I take that to mean that humanity would easily be able to create thousands of said virtual realities. Not that individuals would.
With that in mind, here's something that we could easily do but no one would ever do - start a one thousand acre sheep farm in Antarctica.
Why not? No one has both the motivation and the power to do so. I'm sure you can think of others.

And as this relates to your example, I did say maybe it would be done. Just not thousands of times. A lot of resources would be required. While as a species we might have those resources to spare, I doubt individuals would.