Author: Ben de Jesus

Date: 6-6-05

Class: SymSys 205

Topic: Commentary for Week 9

In the discussion of Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument, we analyzed the probability that we are currently living in a simulation. The argument proposes that if a simulation existed in which the participants are to create simulations, then the percentages of those that would create simulations is the percent chance that we are in fact living in a simulation. This argument is contingent upon creating a simulation complex enough to first begin, which is not the case. However, using mathematic models, Bostrom shows that the probability is extremely small that we ever create a simulation grand enough to capture such information, or that we already live in a simulation. Neither of these conclusions leaves much room for life being what it is unless the argument is scrapped altogether; without the technology to create such a simulation and the inability to prove whether we are in such a simulation, we are still here doing the same thing.

The discussion did however bring about some important hypotheses pertaining to the future of simulation and technology. First, because we currently do not have the technology to run such a simulation, we are looking towards a massive evolution of programming and hardware, marking the demise of our current thinking of technology. If we ever wanted to run such a simulation, a computer the size of a planet powerful enough to run processes numbering the people of the world would be needed. The simulation must also be powerful enough to run simulations within it as well. This introduces ideas of post humans, an evolved form of the humans we are today. Others call this belief, (that we will transgress our current limitations in computational thought and technology) trans-humanism. It is clear that we are evolving in our ways of thinking and development of technology, so such beliefs of grand-scale evolution are not implausible. Another possibility, however, is that because such simulations act as “glass ceilings,” we as humans will never be able to reach such levels of technological sophistication, thereby marking a point of inevitable doom that looms in our future. Finally, its possible that the argument fails because there is not real need to run a simulation in a simulation. If the post human is intelligent enough to create the simulation, but not distinguish whether it is or not in the simulation, then it is not post-human, and is as evolved as we are.

The discussion was extremely heavy with philosophical possibilities and paradoxes. Does a one-to-one neuron mapping make a mind? If so, what does this say about the duplication of our experiences and principles? We also discussed Newcome’s paradox, which illustrates the difficulty of free will in a deterministic simulation. Finally, we looked at the heart condition diagnostic where a subject is told to keep his hand in ice water as long as possible, ride a stationary bike, then ice the hand again. The knowledge of the test, knowing that it is a heart diagnostic, affects the length of time a subject would submit himself to pain. This parallels how one would try to “trick” oneself into choosing what he/she would not choose to yield the greatest outcome in Newcome’s paradox. It also shows that if life really were a simulation and we what the test was, then our actions would be more deliberate and goal-oriented, rather than probabilistic as they seem to be.