Simulated reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since July 2006. (help, talk)
The neutrality of this article may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

Simulated reality describes a hypothetical environment that, although experienced as real, is actually a highly detailed simulation of reality. Unlike the currently technologically achievable concept of virtual reality, which is easily distinguished from the experience of "real" reality, a simulated reality would be very hard, if not impossible, to tell apart from "real" reality. Hyperreality describes postmodern ideas regarding the perceptions of reality which in some ways parallel this concept.

The modern conceptual version of simulated reality involves a thought experiment along the lines of imagining that the person experiencing the simulated reality is somehow interfacing with a computer of considerable power that is regulating the rules of the simulation, and provides the subject with sensory input. A deeper thought experiment may even assume that the subject experiencing the simulation is itself simulated within the simulation, and may have no physical existence at all outside of the simulation.

This is a precise modernization of the Eastern supposition that "we are just the dreams of a god", in which the god can be considered a primitive anthropomorphism of the simulating mechanism, for example a computer running a physics model.

One practical, one philosophical, and one ethical question arise immediately:

  • is it, even in principle, possible to tell whether we are in a simulated reality or a real one?
  • is there any difference between the two?
  • how should we behave if we knew that we were living in a simulated reality?

Contents

[edit] Simulated people in simulated reality

Several people have pointed out that if a human brain is analyzed in sufficient detail, the mechanism of that brain might be electronically simulated. The result would behave as an electronic duplicate of the original human brain, as occurs in mind transfer. Whether the speed is similar to the normal speed of a brain would affect how it could interact with the real world. Gathering enough detail is neither possible nor practical, at present in the early 21st century. Science fiction authors have noted various difficulties which such a being may encounter, such as its existence being legally recognized, the right to own property, and the relationships with the original and other duplicates of itself.

[edit] Is this a simulated reality?

[edit] Simulation argument

The simulation argument, put forth by the philosopher Nick Bostrom, investigates the possibility that we may be living in a simulation. The argument attempts to prove the disjunction of three hypotheses (that is, that at least one of the following three propositions must be true), that:

either
  1. the human race will never reach a level of technology where we can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality; or
  2. races who do reach such a level do not tend to run such simulations; or
  3. we are almost certainly living in such a simulation.

His argument uses the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to simulate entire inhabitated planets or even larger habitats or even entire universes as quantum simulations in time/space pockets, including all the people on them, on a computer, and that simulated people can be fully conscious, and are as much persons as non-simulated people are.

If we then assume that the human race could reach such a technological level without destroying themselves in the process (i.e. we deny the first hypothesis); and that once we reached such a level we would still be interested in history, the past, and our ancestors, and that there would be no legal or moral strictures on running such simulations (we deny the second hypothesis) - then

  • it is likely that we would run a very large number of so-called ancestor simulations;
  • and that, by the same line of reasoning, many of these simulations would in turn run other sub-simulations, and so on;
  • and that given the fact that right now it is impossible to tell whether we are living in one of the vast number of simulations or the original ancestor universe, the likelihood is that the former is true.

Assumptions as to whether the human race (or another intelligent species) could reach such a technological level without destroying themselves depend greatly on the value of the Drake equation, which gives the number of intelligent technological species communicating via radio in a galaxy at any given point in time. The expanded equation looks to the number of posthuman civilizations that ever would exist in any given universe. If the average for all universes, real or simulated, is greater than or equal to one such civilization existing in each universe's entire history, then odds are rather overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the average such civilization is living in a simulation, assuming that such simulated universes are possible and such civilizations would want to run such simulations.

[edit] Criticism

The disjunctive logic of Bostrum's "Simulation Argument" fails to recognize a fourth hypothesis:

4 - No life, in any universe, has evolved sufficiently to be able to create the technology required to support such a simulation.

As of 2006, the computational requirements for Molecular dynamics are such that it takes several months of computing time on the world's fastest computers to simulate 1/10th of one second of the folding of a single protein molecule.[citation needed]

Some consider the Simulation Argument to be little more than a modern, perhaps more plausible, rehashing of the idea put forth in the middle ages, most notably by René Descartes - that perceived existence is the result of the workings of a deceiving god or an evil demon. Hilary Putnam postulated a "brain-in-a-vat" scenario.

Others see the proposition itself as being rather metaphysical, having little to no real life applicability since the claim is essentially unprovable in any concrete sense - any "evidence" that is directly observed could be another simulation itself. This is akin to an infinite regress problem with the argument. Even if we are a simulated reality, there is no way to be sure the people running the simulation are not themselves a simulation, and the operators of that simulation are not a simulation, ad infinitum. Given the premises of the simulation argument, any reality, even one running a simulation, has no better or worse chances of being a simulation than any other.

Another criticism is that reality is only what is perceived as reality. Even if this is a "simulation", it is still the only "Reality" we have ever known, and we have no example of a non simulated reality to compare it to, so this is still, in a sense, "reality" as we understand it. Reality simply becomes defined down to a narrower scope, with a bigger super-reality "above" it.

Another criticism that can be made is that the argument relies on probability when not all possible outcomes are known. The conclusion that we might be living in a simulated universe makes the assumption "there can be large number of simulated universes and one physical universe" is not necessarily true. There are other possibilities and hence probability cannot be applied to only a subset of the outcomes.

[edit] Empirical method

If one suspects that one is in a simulated reality, it may be possible but fiendishly difficult to ascertain its nature. If the simulation is created by an omnipotent being then it is fair to assume that since all actions require infinitesimal effort for the creator, the creator has created the reality in infinite detail. The second scenario, then, is one in which a reality is somehow created by, or with the aid of, computer(s). There are two subordinate scenarios. The first is one in which the simulation is designed for people to be born into. In this case they will almost invariably accept it, unless it provokes some sort of adverse reaction at a 'biological' level, e.g. making them [by accident or not] experience extreme pain, causing their muscles to seize up, making them unable to breathe. The other scenario is one in which the reality (here called Y) is designed to dupe people, taken from Reality X, that Reality Y 'is' Reality X. Once this is done, Reality Y may change from what Reality X should be like, but without referential, the people in Reality Y will simply believe that they are still in Reality X, which is now changing. Any of the subordinate scenarios could omit unnecessary detail which the people inside would probably not discover (e.g.far reaches of the universe, centres of black holes, inside of the sun) which could be generated later if required. However, only the "born-into" reality could be vastly different from any non-simulated reality because people born into it would not have anything to compare it to and would grow to accept it as "real". The aforementioned Reality Y could "degrade" to become less detailed. If this was done slowly enough, the inhabitants would be none the wiser. Computer-simulated realities would probably involve some omission (e.g. less detailed "graphics" which would come to be accepted by long-time residents or which could be implemented gradually so as not to arouse suspicion.) Thus in a computer-generated simulation one could empirically determine the reality of one's reality by searching for things that one is not meant to find (e.g. edge of universe). If there is an incomprehensible void, it is likely a computer omission made in the name of speed and effectiveness for the simulation.

Either way, even if this is a simulated reality, our actions in it still have the same consequences for us as they would in a "real" reality. it is questionable as to whether there is any real difference for us if we are in a simulation or not. This reality can still affect us and is as dangerous as any physical realm would be.

[edit] Birth In A Simulated Reality

Another question raised about simulated reality is what would happen if a human is 'born' in simulated reality. This does not mean the physical process of creating a human in reality, but rather interfacing an infant with the simulation. The simulation would not have to be as realistic, or even close, to reality, because the human will grow to accept it. If the human subject has no memories of 'actual' reality, he will assume the simulation is true, considering the subject has nothing to compare it with. It is difficult to speculate how a human, having grown accustomed to a particular reality (irrespective of whether it is real or fake), would react to being brought into another reality (e.g. "freeing" someone born into a simulation different from the "real world" or indeed putting them into another vastly different simulation). Thus simulations designed for humans to be born into need not incorporate full detail as the people inside will have no referential reality to compare the simulation to. It is likely then that such a simulation (generated using computers) could have lower detail levels and omit content which the people inside would probably not discover (e.g. core of the Earth) and simply use a simpler algorithm to generate the symptoms of the omitted content (e.g. heat and magnetic field from Earth's core)

[edit] Theological models of a simulated reality

Several theological models feature a simulated reality as a key concept. These include:

[edit] Simulated reality in fiction

Simulated reality is a theme that pre-dates science fiction. In Medieval and Renaissance religious theatre, the concept of the world as a theater is frequent. Works, early and contemporary, include:

[edit] Literature

[edit] Film, plays & TV series

[edit] Interactive fiction

[edit] Video games

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/m/Simulated_reality.html"
In other languages