Proof
From Simulism
Contents |
[edit] How not being able to prove it, doesn't prove anything
Intuitively, it would appear that a proof (from within the simulation) that one is living in a simulation need not generally be constructable, for all kinds of possible simulations. By "constructable", we mean that some sentient being within the simulation thinks of (constructs) the proof. In particular, at least some simulations would be "rewindable", at least partly. If, in such a simulation, a sentient being were to begin to think of a proof, the simulation monitor could observe this, rewind the simulation, and perturb it slightly so that the proof is not thought of. It doesn't appear that this would be at all difficult for an entity powerful enough to run the simulation in the first place.
If this argument is correct, lack of a proof would not constitute evidence against the possibility that we are living in a simulation.
[edit] Still a challenge
If you can actually prove that we are living in a simulation, feel free to post your proof here.
So far, there is no conclusive evidence.
[edit] Attempts
Below are attempts from wiki readers to provide prove. (Note, there is a thin line between what should be on the 'Arguments' page and what should be on the 'Proof' page. The more physical 'evidence' would be, the more it would belong on this page. At least, until there is absolutely convincing undeniable proof. When that happens, 'softer' evidence will be moved to a different section.
Simulism wiki user Croguy contributes the following:
- I can see a few examples of evidence for proof in the form of glitches. Firstly, how about Deja Vu? This is still an unexplained phenomena, and no matter what theories scientists may present - it is still as yet undetermined what is the actual cause. From a simulation point of view - it is the perfect example of a glitch. A minor malfunction in the program with regards to the subject experiencing Deja Vu. It could be something as simple as a binary digit sequencing error that could cause it. Since nearly everyone has experienced it at least once in their lifetime, it does seem to be a common minor problem for the simulators.
- Secondly, I consider sleep paralysis as another glitch. When this occurs to a subject in sleep mode, again like Deja Vu, it lasts only a moment and is also not fully understood. Another binary sequencing error in the program? Perhaps.
- And how about mental disorders like schizophrenia? Is the subject's original program malfunctioning in some way? Are the subjects that are experiencing schizophrenia having their programs altered for the sake of experimentation?
- To conclude, no program or creation will ever be completely bug free - no matter how advanced it may be. Just like a painting cannot be 100% perfect or a movie be completely free of tiny subtle continuity errors. On a macroscopic scale it may all appear to be smooth, but underneath every surface there are always cracks.
- Does anyone else agree with these glitches?
-
- Pmerolla's response to Croguy:
-
- These examples are not so much computer glitches as they are actual glitches in the brain. Deja Vu, for instance, is thought to be neuron misfirings in the temporal lobe, or perhaps even minor temporal lobe seizures. By stimulating the temporal lobe in epileptic patients, researchers were able to trigger episodes of Deja Vu. This hardly seems like a simulation glitch.
-
- Sleep paralysis can be caused by the malfunctioning of the hypothalamus, which is the brain region that is responsible for regulating our sleep cycles (from REM to the awake state). There is a condition called hypnagognic narcolepsy, where the immune system attacks the hypothalamus and these unfortunate souls experience sleep paralysis quite frequently (not just for a moment).
-
- And why focus on schizophrenia? What about Parkinsons, or Alzheimers, or the common cold? These are physical ailments that have fairly well understood mechanisms. I guess I really just don't get this glitch argument.
Wiki user Trentreznor has contributed an entire essay on this subject, which can be found here: Obtaining Evidence
[edit] Disproof
If we are to regard the hypothesis of simulism as a 'scientific' proposition, we should be looking not for proof, but in Popper's terms, for falsifiability. This means that we should be using the hypothesis to make predictions, then looking for disconfirming evidence, and in the absence of such evidence to conclude reluctantly that the hypothesis just might be correct.
In looking for disproof, we might argue the following, for example:
(i) A computer simulation is, after all, merely a program. All known programs have bugs, glitches and other errors. These errors will be manifested to those living within the simulation as holes, non-functioning elements and other 'peculiarities' which cause 'run-time' errors. Anyone who has played on-line roleplaying games will be familiar for example, with 'broken' elements within the game. Thus the simulism hypothesis predicts large-scale and pervasive glitches would necessarily exist. Such glitches are certainly neither pervasive nor a commonplace. It has been argued that such bugs could be programmed around, or 'covered up' by an intelligent operating system. In this case, it is therefore by no means clear that experience supports the simulism hypothesis.
- If there were numerous bugs in our simulation, we would have absolutely no way of recognizing them as such, having never seen the way it's supposed to work. Therefore, there would be no need for the operators of the simulation to censor our discovery of said bugs Spoof.
(2) Programs are the results of creative activity. In almost all cases, creators insert their own 'stamp' on the reults of their labours. Medieval architects had their images placed as corbels in cathedrals; Hitchcock made cameo appearances in his own films; Slartibartfast signed his name on a glacier. Extrapolating this activity to a real-world simulation, we would expect to have found codes, images, or other clear designations of authorship at some macro or micro level. None has been found.
(3) If the real world is a simulation rather than say, a complex cellular automata, then it has a purpose, and a designer. We would expect to find evidence of design at several structural levels. This would mean, for example that the atoms, physical constants and processes, chemical reactions would all be disbalanced in favour of producing the object of the simulation, namely conscious life. Here we do find such evidence; Creationists have been using it to argue for the existence of a creator, rather than in this case a software designer.
We can see from these simple arguments, that the 'disproof' strategy is not straightforward either. In some cases it would seem to lead to the conclusion that we are not living in a simulation; in others we are, and in yet others the conclusion is uncertain.