Today's New York Times had an article on an idea by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom...?

Question

... who posits that we live in a virtual world (similar on the surface to, but unlike, "The Matrix"). In particular, he poses the following scenario: There exist a race of advanced humanlike beings - posthumans (probably descendants of humans.) These beings, in order to understand themselves and their ancestry, have created a massive supercomputer in which *we* all live, as virtual humans. The laws of the universe we infer around us, our environment, our past, everything is a virtual existence. Anything we can attribute to natural laws (as we see them) or supernatural phenomena are a part of this virtual reality.

In particular, the NYT article states the following: "It's unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like (WoW). Peace is boring, Dude."

Thoughts?

Yeah. Sorry I didn't include the link. Can't access the NYT webpage from my office for some reason internally. My IT guys are working on it as we speak. :D

Thanks Squirrel!

Salient, I don't suppose you have the full title (or *is* it "Anthropic Bias"?)

Squirrel: But if the computer *is* the universe, it could simulate an environment that is less complex than the one in which it resides. Why is it the case that *that* world couldn't be more complex than the world we perceive (and is our universe)?

Salient, I did read the article and did notice that. Sorry if I implied otherwise in my summary. I was more intrigued by the broader *if* than the magnitude of likelihood.

Answer 1

Rhetorical nonsense. Pointless even to consider it.

Answer 2

Nick is a very good philosopher. His book on Anthropic Bias is one of the best ( and most interesting ) philosophy books I have read. That said, I don't agree with everything he says. However you should read the entire article, or even better the paper it is based on, where he estimates the probability of this being true is only 20%.

This does show how quickly people jump to the wrong conclusions without bothering to verify the actual facts, and how gullible people are in accepting your faulty statement as fact.

Here is Nick's Biography. I suggest that people investigate the truth before trashing someone based on false information.

Nick Bostrom's research covers issues in the foundations of probability theory, global catastrophic risk, ethics of human enhancement, and consequences of potential future technologies such as artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, and related areas.

Bostrom has published more than 100 articles, including papers in journals such as Nature, Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Bioethics, Mind, Journal of Medical Ethics, and Astrophysics & Space Science. He is the author of one monograph, Anthropic Bias (Routledge), and co-editor of two forthcoming volumes (OUP). His writings have been translated into more than 15 languages.

Bostrom has a background in physics and computational neuroscience as well as philosophy. Before moving to Oxford, he taught philosophy at Yale University. He is also a former British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow. He worked briefly as an expert consultant for the European Commission in Brussels and for the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington DC.

The full book title is:

Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (Studies in Philosophy)

You can buy it at amazon. It is a bit expensive but I have to admit it was one of the most interesting books I have ever read.

As far as the possibility of such a simulation, I would not attempt to venture a guess. However to answer squirrels point: I see no apriori reason that a quantum computer operating in an infinite multiverse would be limited to the complexity of any particular world. If you merely limit yourself to a conventional computer sure. Do I think any of this is likely: No. But Nick always presents interesting issues that most people never even consider.

Answer 3

I don't suppose you have a link?

Found it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html
---

Okay, I read it.

Here's my reaction: It might be possible for a computer to simulate much of what we sense -- a computer could simulate the surface of my desk as I move my hand across it, the light streaming in my window, and the music in my ears.

But, it could not, by definition, simulate all that we observe about the universe, because in order to simulate the universe itself, the computer would actually *be* the universe. In other words, you can't write a program that simulates a program more powerful than the computer that runs it. Since the computer would be contained in *this* universe, its simulation would have to be less complex than the universe itself.

So, the computer could not simulate particles reacting, it could not simulate quantum mechanics, macro-gravity (meaning, how the stars and galaxies pull each other), or interesting things that happen when objects approach the speed of light.

As such, I reject his premise that computers could simulate the Matrix. You could always design an experiment that would push the computer's ability to predict beyond its ability, because the computer cannot be more powerful than the universe itself.

That's my initial reaction, as someone with a BS in computer science and a strong background in math.

Answer 4

When I was in 7th grade the science teacher read an article to the class. The article was so thought provoking that I began to doubt if I really existed. What if I wasn't really sitting in the chair.? It scared the crap out of me.

As to your computer geek, he doesn't seem to have a handle on world events. Maybe he should pray.Maybe we should all pray.


Sending you a smile to help pick up your day.

Answer 5

I don't really think someone in a virtual world would come up with such nonsense! There is a 20% probability he was just programmed to say that.

Answer 6

Sounds like the One World Government System to me!!!

Peace is boring. When is the last time you had peace? We holler peace, peace and there is no peace! We hear constantly of wars and rumors of wars. No one living today has seen a peaceful earth. I promise you will see the day that you will beg for peace.

Answer 7

Yeah where's the damn article, nerd?