Are we in a simulation?
Do we have any reason or easily observable evidence to suspect that we might be in a simulation?
Well, actually yes we do have observable evidence which for a simulation attempting to present self aware, free thinking population could actually be deduced. So, this page on it’s own presents quite a lot of observable evidence that I’ve not seen presented anywhere else to support the assertion that we are very, very likely to be living in a simulation.
Professor Bostrom’s Formally Published Simulation Argument Sparked Interest in Simulation Possibilities
Well, Professor Bostrom put forward and had published a ‘simulation argument’ in 2003 (home page of the web site giving details of this is here). For the simulation argument he basically presents a very simple reasoning line which can be summed up as follows:
He uses our own continuous and rapid advances in computer technologies to deduce that at some point it’s quite logical that we ourselves will possibly, even within the next few decades have the capabilities to create a simulation of a world full of conscious people. He argues that if we could do this, then we might then develop the capacity to create many such simulations and as such it’s very possible that this has already been done and if it has already been done then it’s likely that there are more simulated people living in a simulated reality than there are real people living in a real reality and ‘therefore’ we ourselves are perhaps simulated people living in a simulated reality.
So, in Professor Bostrom formalizing the above very logical reasoned argument he actually gave us all a very good reason as to why we should at the very least spend some time ‘thinking’ and pondering the possibility that we are perhaps in a simulation specifically (rather than a Matrix for example).
The Simulation Argument Gives us ALL Good Reason to THINK about ‘Earth as a Simulation’ Possibilities
If you read the general pages on his simulation argument web site and particularly his FAQ page as well as his ‘Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be In One’ page then you might notice that Professor Bostrom despite doing a magnificent job with respect to putting together the ‘simulation argument’ actually not only makes some authoritative but very odd and completely false unreasoned statements relating to ‘earth as a simulation’ (EAAS) possibilities BUT he doesn’t present basic foundation information such as explaining what the differences are between a Matrix and a Simulation.
As there are seriously important differences between a Matrix (this involves real people) and a Simulation (which involves simulating software defined copies of people very accurately) then it’s confounding to the extreme to have a page (Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be In One) describing and discussing MATRIX only possibilities on a web site purporting to be focused on SIMULATION ONLY POSSIBILITIES. Not only does this page NOT explain what the stark differences are BUT it also doesn’t even give basic definitions of a Simulation or a Matrix either which would at the very least help you to become aware of the differences between these two reality types yourself.
We are actually told very strongly that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation there will be no presented glitches or anomalies, despite no formal reasoning being offered to back this assertion up while once again we are not offered definitions of either a glitch or an anomaly, nor ‘amazingly’ any ‘potential’ examples of these as part of basic ‘anomaly’ orientation efforts. Even more bizarrely, we are confidently told that anyone purporting to have experiences that they consider to be an anomaly are likely to NOT be ‘real’ anomalies BUT rather to be a sign that the person having such experiences must be suffering from some sort of human frailty.
Why do Simulation Argument Discussions & Pages Continually Mix up Simulation Only Information with Matrix Only Material?
This use of a frail people assertion to ‘rationally’ explain any reported ‘potential’ anomalies is to be quite frank delusional in the extreme. However, it does fit in perfectly with the bizarre inability of Professor Bostrom and apparently everyone else here to separate out Matrix only possibilities from Simulation only possibilities.
It would be ENTIRELY valid for a Matrix which is of real people living in a virtual i.e. software defined ‘external’ reality to ASSUME that frailties in these ‘real’ peoples perceptions and therefore experiences would be due to themselves being FRAIL as real people.
On the other hand on a web site supposedly seriously discussing simulation possibilities you would imagine that they would know that people in a simulation are entirely generated by seriously, unbelievable complex software. The software complexity and the time and effort (and massive expense) required ‘just’ to define self aware, allegedly free THINKING components would be phenomenal. It would be a ‘FACT’ that your simulated as self aware ‘THINKING’ component would absolutely be ‘THE’ most complicated ‘software’ defined component in your simulation by an order of magnitude compared to anything else.
Let me give you a very pertinent example of the unbelievable degree of complexity that would be involved for the ‘important’ to the simulation, software defined self aware ‘human’ components.
- Can you appreciate the complexity of all of very many potential software interactions that would be involved that would contribute to what may be going on in someone’s simulated head as simulated neurons and so on which would have to be coordinated with their simulated internal perceptions and the entirely software defined ‘human’ mind? Can you?
- Can you appreciate the full scale of sensory and perceptual information, coupled with all of the feelings and thoughts, and also the memory and the sensory recall, including all those from dreams, imagination, day dreaming, visualisations, internal mental model building constructs that would each have to be pre-evaluated and then treated differently from the real life external NOW perceptions? Have you ‘actually’ spent time ‘thinking’ about this?
- Can you appreciate that in daring to software define a copied person while being forced to make compromises in desperate attempts to give this copied person living out a copied life the ILLUSION of free will you will be forced to give them scope to wander OFF SCRIPT (and particularly for unimportant ‘general’ experiences) with the very annoying outcome that for many scripted instances never mind for any EXTENDED UNIMPORTANT ‘PHASES’ what is scripted for themselves as ‘experiences’ in their data will NOT BE WHAT THEY WILL BE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING.
- Can you then appreciate the hierarchy of priorities involved in attempting to bring order and coherence to such a complex nexus of interacting sensory, neural ‘processing’ and different memory ‘version’ coherence possibilities (as described in this 6 page ‘extended’ and ‘worryingly’ comprehensive mini series starting here) intermixed with the compromises that this software will be FORCED to make in attempts to maintain the illusion that each person here has freewill AND is living in an ‘imagined’ real reality? Can you appreciate this? Can you REALLY? Because I’ve bizarrely never seen anyone actually show that they are in slightest AWARE of the complexity involved in designing a highly complex self aware component that also has to be convinced that it has free will AND that it’s living in a ‘real’ reality?
- Can you appreciate the unbelievable scale of complexity, intermixed with all sorts of potential compromises and fudges because you are making each person live out a predefined life while trying to make sure that this isn’t OBVIOUS either to individuals or with respect to the population as a whole, while ALSO having to perform various ‘keep these weird experiences hidden’ conversions, because the person they are simulating spent time interfaced to a VR environment for example?
- Can you appreciate that confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are the ‘stupidly’ obvious, EASILY deduced (if you are actually able to start thinking), observable, visible clues which are also conclusive evidence ALL ON THEIR OWN that everyone in your population is living out someone else’s copied life, inclusive of that persons pre-defined embedded beliefs, ideals, facts, truths and so on?
In the light of the above, it would be a sign of severe cognitive frailty for ANYONE discussing simulation only possibilities to NOT question the possibility that frailties in simulated people could be due to the FACT that simulated as self aware, free thinking ‘components’ would absolutely be the most complicated component in your simulation.
As the self aware, allegedly’ able to string two coherent thoughts together ‘human’ component would absolutely be the most COMPLICATED component in the simulation then you would imagine that absolutely anyone discussing ‘human’ frailties with respect to SIMULATION possibilities would automatically, AUTOMATICALLY discuss the possibilities of human frailties in terms of these being possible anomalies at the very least of multiple highly complex software interactions. After all as we cannot even write something as stupidly simple as word processing software without there being errors and bugs in EVERY SINGLE VERSION then you would imagine that anyone discussing an entirely software defined reality would actually, you know spend some time THINKING in software bugs and error terms as opposed to NOT AT ALL. Anyone discussing ‘simulation’ possibilities that didn’t ‘automatically’ discuss the self aware, free thinking component complexity problems and the potential for software errors and bugs would be strong evidence ALL ON IT’S OWN that we are software defined people with our software defined THINKING being subjected to very obvious ‘keep the simulation safe from discovery management’ software efforts!!!
What Happened to Reasoned THINKING Based in Already Known Common Knowledge?
Are you aware that science ‘alleges’ to support the accumulation of knowledge AND as part of doing this it works to provide a trail of reasoning and understanding building blocks based on what is already considered ‘known’ or what is ‘common knowledge’ with respect to a particularly subject area?
In which case, you would imagine that the base of common knowledge, experience and the already known ‘knowns’ would automatically be referred to and be used as the foundation and starting point for anyone speculating upon and evaluating ‘new’ possibilities that are ‘obviously’ substantially similar to fields of knowledge that are already well established.
In other words, the correct and in fact ‘rational’ approach when evaluating any new possibilities would be for ourselves to ‘focus’ on familiarizing ourselves with what we already know based on the established and accumulated base of knowledge that are the most closely related to the possibilities and subject areas that we are speculating on. You would imagine that this would particularly be the case if we were confronted with potentially controversial and or conceptually ‘uncomfortable’ possibilities.
In other words, you would imagine that anyone considering the possibility that we ourselves are perhaps living in a simulation would then automatically in the very first instance think about and evaluate this possibility with respect to our own accumulated knowledge and expertise of simulations and particularly our practical experiences of designing and running simulations
At the very least, this would have us becoming aware of the common use of simulations, the common problems encountered designing, building and running ‘operational’ simulations as well as the common approaches to resolving commonly encountered design and operational problems. This knowledge could then be used as a starting point for ourselves to think about all sorts of REALISTIC possibilities.
Just a little pondering has you becoming aware that there are some obvious angles that it would perhaps be useful to think about and speculate on if we were evaluating the possibility of ourselves possibly living in a simulation. For example:
“We could think about how we ourselves here ‘practically’ approach designing simulations and on the basis of what we already know here, we could think about the potential problems we would encounter designing a simulation that would be ‘specifically’ attempting to define and render a self aware population on an entire world inclusive of a cosmic backdrop.”
“We could think about what simulations are commonly used for and what they are commonly designed to achieve and then we could speculate as to why ‘anyone’ would simulate a self aware population based on why we ourselves already commonly use simulations for.”
Unfortunately, despite that what I describe above is what you would ‘expect’ of ‘rational’ people no where does this happen for speculation about ‘simulation argument, simulation hypothesis or simulated reality’ possibilities. Not one site presents definitions, common knowledge about practical operational WORKING simulations, no one speculates in how designers would approach building a full reality simulation.
No one seems capable of even becoming aware that perhaps it might be a good idea to spend time thinking about the potential problems of simulating software defined self aware COPIES of people whom will each be being FORCED TO LIVE OUT SOMEONE ELSE’S LIFE.
Easily Deducible, Observable Evidence of Earth as a Simulation Information Anomalies . . .
So, for all you rational and objective ‘professional’ THINKERS out there can you figure out WHOM WOULD BENEFIT from ourselves having:
- A lack of basic definitions . . .
- The ‘happening absolutely EVERYWHERE’ mixing up of simulation only with matrix only material as well as . . .
- A distinct lack of basic foundation information or any ‘common knowledge’ information we ourselves have accumulated based on our own experiences of designing running and problems solving for operational simulations we ourselves have ALREADY BUILT?
- An absolutely lack of any coherent thinking or even the awareness that ‘simulation’ means / EQUALS entirely software defined people with entirely software defined heads which means it’s DEAD EASY to absolutely define what a software simulated person will be allowed to become aware of and or THINK ABOUT?
- And equally as easy for anyone reading the above to have their head filled will all sorts of highly imaginative, utter ‘bullshit’ about what I write here.
The FACT that even experts cannot get anything right or even present basic information, the FACT that I’ve not seen anyone anywhere actually point out that basic foundation information and definitions are missing and or that there is a continuous mix and match of simulation only information with matrix only information AND that no one has even noticed this is in fact ‘also’ VERY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE IN A SIMULATION.
I’d have to say that everything I describe above in not only a very suspicious body of evidence in it’s own right BUT it’s also of course even more suspicious because the only people that would benefit from this consistently observed feeble-mindedness that is specific with respect to ‘earth as s simulation’ information would be some hypothetical simulation designers.
In the light of the above, here is a ‘genius’ grade question for you to ‘ponder on’ . . . .
“Which of the following reality types would offer the best chance for any ‘potential’ reality designer to directly influence or even comprehensively manage absolutely anyone’s awareness of ANY simulation possibilities, their ability to THINK properly about simulation possibilities, such that they are utterly, UTTERLY unable to become aware that it might be a good idea to actually write out and list the absolute most basic differences that the different COMMONLY known about reality types would exhibit?”
Your selection of reality types to choose from are as follows:
- A ‘real’ reality within which everything arises and unfolds according to natural laws.
- A ‘matrix’ reality within which real people are interfaced to an entirely software defined external VR environment (i.e. there would be the possibility to EASILY influence the external reality presentation).
- A simulation, within which each person is entirely software defined, and whose self awareness, thinking and evaluating abilities are entirely dependent on both the accuracy of cognitive and mental functioning software as well as the software that protects the aims, objectives and agendas of the simulation project itself, which coincidentally, it can be deduced won’t in the slightest be keen on having anyone in the simulated population becoming ‘absolutely’ aware that they are actually REALLY living within someone’s ‘copied people & reality’ simulation project.
I will now give you more evidence in support of my Earth Simulation Hypothesis . . .
On Professor Bostroms simulation-argument.com FAQ page he writes:
“It seems likely that the hypothetical simulators, who would evidently have to be technologically extremely advanced to create simulations with conscious participants, would also have the ability to prevent these simulated creatures from noticing anomalies in the simulation.”
The above is actually written, ‘BUT’ then there is a complete failure to become aware of or figure out ‘exactly’ what any simulation designers would actually ‘DO’ to prevent their software defined population from ‘NOTICING’ anomalies. Perhaps anomalies such as:
- The lack of ‘simulation’ & ‘matrix’ definitions . . .
- The lack of any comparison list of the attributes of commonly speculated about reality types . . .
- The absolute lack of any referencing to already established common knowledge about simulations . . .
- The lack of anyone anywhere actually mentioning that they are discussing software defined people, with software defined THINKING living in a software defined reality.
Coincidentally, ‘IF’ anyone was able to figure out that it might be useful to spend time trying to actually ‘THINK’ like an ‘earth as a simulation’ designer AND actually manage to do this, such that they were able to actually start THINKING realistically about earth as a simulation possibilities (I’ve been doing this for a few years now) then they might figure out something that is ‘stupidly’ obvious.
In a simulation project attempting to present entirely software defined SELF AWARE, FREE THINKING people then it is very obvious that the designers of such a simulation would prevent their simulated population from noticing and even of thinking about anomalies by DIRECTLY managing the software defined AWARENESS, THINKING & the EVALUATING ABILITIES of their entirely software defined ‘simulated’ population AND they would particularly use this strategy (as I explain in detail here: How a Simulated Copied Person’s Life CAUSES are Calculated to Lead to Specific Already Pre-Defined Future Outcomes) to very ‘tightly’ manage their populations simulated academics and scientists AND they would ALSO attempt to make sure that no one notices this.
If this stupidly obvious strategy was implemented then the information presentations relating to discussion and speculation about earth as a simulation possibilities would be dire, there’d be no definitions, they’d be no decent basic information and even worse this could be done and . . .
NO ONE WOULD NOTICE . . . .
Strangely this is OBSERVABLY the case here . . .
Because of what I describe above, then this page is the starting ‘place holder’ page for a series of pages presenting stupidly basic foundation information and definitions attuned to ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities which will act as a complement to the pages and series already written presenting just some of the observable evidence that we are in a simulation.
For example, do you know that confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are EXACTLY, not only what you would expect a simulated COPIED population to exhibit BUT you can by using basic THINKING and stupidly simple reasoning actually deduce these effects which are an impossible to hide side effect of simulating an accurately copied population with each simulated person accurately living out someone else’s life (as I describe here: How Would a Simulated Persons Behaviour in a Simulated Reality Be Different to a Real Persons Behaviour in a Real Reality?).
On this page here: Are we living in a simulation? What EVIDENCE have I presented so far to Support an Earth as a Simulation Project Hypothesis? I list 18 points of OBSERVABLE evidence (not pie in the sky theoretical type evidence) that we ourselves are living in a simulation project although this is just the evidence UP TO that page and doesn’t include all the evidence I present on later series.
Because of the lack of definitions and basic foundation information then the pages that follow this one in this specific series will present the sort of information that ‘IF’ we were in a real reality we would already have as a matter of course on the simulation argument web site when it was first put up never mind on many others since then.
In other words the following pages will present the missing definitions, foundation information and the basic understandings that you actually need before you can even start THINKING about ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities.
The link list below this page hold ALL simulation ‘basic information’ pages (about 13). Although you are recommended to read each series in order AND to read each series at least:
2 or 3 times
. . . given that this page on it’s own ALREADY presents decent evidence that everyone here is being managed with respect to all earth as a simulation presented information.
Since I wrote this page I’ve written another 2 entire ‘simulation evidence’ series such that the total pages presenting different angles of ONGOING evidence almost reach 100.