Simulation and the Matrix Argument Prob

Simulation and The Matrix -
Are We Living In A Computer
Simulation?
Professor Terry Hyland

Relevant Information
Terry Hyland – Free University of Dublin, Ireland
April 2019
hylandterry@ymail.com
Presentation based on the monograph:
Hyland, T.(2019). Adventures in the Matrix:
Exploring the Philosophical and Educational
Potential of Simulation Arguments (Mauritius:
Scholars’ Press)
https://bolton.academia.edu/TerryHyland;
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terry_Hyland

Similes, Simulations and Philosophical
Thought Experiments
The Allegory (or Simile) of the Cave in Plato’s Republic [1] – whereby
prisoners are imprisoned in a cave and are only able to see the
world by looking at shadows of people passing thrown upon the
cave wall by a fire situated behind their fixed position – is one of
the earliest example of the philosophical idea of the ‘two worlds’
thesis. Basically, the core argument – marking a distinction between
appearance and reality (an especially moot one in the context of
simulation notions and quantum metaphysics) – is that the world
we see around us is an imperfect reflection of an infinitely more
perfect, more accurate and truthful world, which may be accessed
through initiation into certain forms of knowledge and reasoning

Cogito, ergo sum
Descartes [2] vowed to ‘reject as being absolutely false
everything in which I could suppose the slightest reason for
doubt, in order to see if there did not remain after that
anything in my belief which was entirely indubitable’ (p.53).
Thus, using this method which questioned all hitherto
accepted and established beliefs in science and philosophy,
Descartes arrives at his famous Cogito, ergo sum – I think,
therefore I am – which was thought to be ‘so certain and so
self-evident that all the most extravagant suppositions of the
sceptics were not capable of shaking it, I judged that I could
accept it without scruple as the first principle of the
philosophy I was seeking’ (ibid.:pp.53-54).

Descartes’ Evil Demon
In Discourse of Method [2] he states:
I shall suppose, therefore, that there is, not a true
God, who is the sovereign source of truth, but
some evil demon, no less cunning and deceiving
than powerful, who has used all his artifice to
deceive me. I will suppose that the heavens, the
air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all
external things we see, are only illusions and
deceptions which he uses to take me in (p.100)

Descartes’ Solution
In response to this challenge, Descartes goes on to show –
by means of a version of Anselm’s ontological proof - that
God necessarily exists and, thus:
after I have discovered that God exists, recognizing at the
same time that all things depend on him, and that he is no
deceiver, and consequently judged that everything I
perceive clearly and distinctly cannot fail to be true...Thus I
have true and certain knowledge of it. And this same
knowledge also extends to all the other things I remember
having formerly proved as the truths of geometry and the
like...(ibid:p.149).

Modern Thought Experiments
How do we know we are not brains in a vat?

Matrix and Virtual Reality
The central character in the Matrix (1999), Neo, is asked by Morpheus, a
super-advanced computer hacker, which of two pills he would like to
take: a blue one which returns him to normal everyday reality or a red
one which would plunge him into a strange simulated world where
anything can happen. Having accepted the red pill, Neo wakes up in
2199 in a world which is as unpredictable as the one which Alice found
having dropped down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland.
Commentaries on The Matrix point to sources of inspiration in the work
of Plato and Descartes outlined above, but there is one other influence
which is worth noting and this is Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhist
ideas. There are speculations (Heaton, 2014) that the central character,
Neo, can be seen to represent a modern Buddha, reincarnated to preach
a doctrine designed to remove the veil of illusion which prevents humans
from waking up to life as it really is [3].

Buddhism and Delusion
The Buddhist-inspired waking up to the nature of life as it really is has
been described as a ‘science of liberation’ by the Buddhist
psychologist, Olendzki [4]. As he describes this:
Volumes could be written about the details of this science of liberation,
about its discoveries of impermanence, selflessness and suffering, its
analysis of the psychopathological organism into sense spheres,
aggregates and elements, the subtle workings of interdependent
origination and cessation, or about the remarkable territory mapped
out by the exploration of inner states. But the pivotal discovery of this
ancient spirituality is that the world of human experience is a “virtual”
world, constructed each moment by every individual mind and body to
patterns of human invention and instinct (p.27, bold emphasis added).

Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument
Bostrom’s original paper [5] has an abstract which usefully sums up the
main argument.
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a
“posthuman” stage
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant
number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations
thereof)
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that
the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day
become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we
are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences
of this result are also discussed (p.1).

Bostrom’s Posthumans
• Population greater than 1 trillion persons
• Life expectancy greater than 500 years
• Large fraction of the population has cognitive capacities
more than two standard deviations above the current
human maximum
• Near-complete control over the sensory input, for the
majority of people for most of the time
• Human psychological suffering becoming rare occurrence
• Any change of magnitude or profundity comparable to
that of one of the above

Simulation and the Matrix Argument Prob

Evidence Against Simulation
The most common response to the hypothesis is that there is no way of
verifying or falsifying the claim that we are living in a simulation. Since the
Bostrom hypothesis (and any similar ones) fails Popper’s falsification test
which determines whether it is scientifically meaningful or meaningless or
not [6] we might – on strict positivist grounds – be tempted to dismiss it
outright. However, when we consider the fact that two of the most
influential theories of the 20th
century – those of Freud and Marx – are
also rendered meaningless by the strict application of Popper’s criteria,
we may wish to be a little more flexible. Moreover, most of metaphysics,
ethics and religion – spheres of discourse which define contemporary
humanity – would also fail to satisfy such a strict standard of verification.
Also certain scientific theories – such as string theory, multiple universes,
etc – are strongly held even though there is little experimental evidence to
support them [7]

Against Simulation
In terms of scientific proof, there are arguments which
allege that our world is far too complex – especially at the
subatomic level – to be a simulation. Ringel and Kovrihzin
(2017) claim that some functions at the quantum level
are so complex and randomized that they could never be
simulated [8]. A similar, though less scientifically
supported, set of arguments are proposed by Vinding [9]
who claims that ‘some functions of conscious minds may
be impossible to simulate’ (2014:p.590) and, therefore,
we may never be able to simulate such informational and
processing complexity.

Arguments for Simulation
Computing power has grown exponentially in recent years – especially in
quantum computing with the development of the two-qubit chip [10] – and a
number of commentators claim that we are now close to the advanced stage
posited by Bostrom in 2003. In recent debates, Elon Musk, has advanced the
view that the simulation hypothesis is almost certainly true. He reasons that:
If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become
indistinguishable from reality. Just indistinguishable. Even if that rate of
advancement drops by a thousand from what it is right now: then you just say,
‘Okay, let’s imagine it’s 10,000 years in the future,’ which is nothing in the
evolutionary scale. So, given that we’re clearly on a trajectory to have games
that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on
any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions
of such computers or set-top boxes — it would seem to follow that the odds
that we’re in base reality is one in billions [11:p.1-2].

For Simulation
Broadly similar claims have been put forward by, for
instance, the astrophysicist and Nobel prize winner,
George Smoot, who has stated boldly that ‘you are a
simulation and physics can prove it’ [12]. Smoot’s key
arguments range from the fact that our brains did not
evolve to discriminate clearly between reality and
illusion, that it will soon be possible to upload a
complete human brain to a computer, and that
inconsistencies in physics (in particular, quantum
mechanics and general relativity) are exactly what we
would expect in a simulated world.

For Simulation
In the same vein, Jenkins (2006) [13] – utilising ideas
proposed by the futurist Ray Kurzwiel – is confident that
the simulated hypothesis is almost certainly correct and
suggests that:
by 2050 it would be feasible to have a completely
realistic historical simulation running on every desktop,
and that these simulated worlds would outnumber the
real one by a factor of millions or even billions to one.
This makes it almost certain that we live in one of the
simulations if a future society has the motivation to
create them...(p.24)

Implications – Human Values
Bostrom considers the possibility of different levels of simulation – perhaps
involving our own simulations in addition to the posthuman ancestor simulations
being themselves simulated, and so on – and suggests that this serves to
concentrate the mind in terms of morality and reasons for action. As he explains:
Further rumination on these themes could climax in a naturalistic theogony that
would study the structure of this hierarchy, and the constraints imposed on its
inhabitants by the possibility that their actions on their own level may affect the
treatment they receive from dwellers of deeper levels. For example, if nobody
can be sure that they are at the basement-level, then everybody would have to
consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based
perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators. An afterlife would be a real
possibility. Because of this fundamental uncertainty, even the basement
civilization may have a reason to behave ethically (p.12).

Simulation and Ethics
An interesting ethical question in this sphere involves the
morality of simulation both for us and for any putative
simulators. This presents problems and dilemmas which are no
less intriguing and problematic than those discussed above.
Jenkins [13] makes a number of trenchant comments about
the moral and legal aspects of simulation. Whether the
motivation for creating ancestor simulations on the part of our
future descendants is as entertainment, a testing ground for
the further development of AI, a social/economic experiment,
or historical/medical research of some kind, Jenkins proposes
that such constructions face the same moral and legal issues
that we face today in our own research and scientific activity.

Implications – Religion and Spirituality
Problems about the existence of God are obviated if our world is
simulated by our descendants (human or posthuman). Can the
the same be said of theodicy or, as it is more commonly
described, the problem of evil? This problem applies specifically
to monotheistic beliefs and was formulated by Epicurus in the
4th
century BCE and elaborated by Hume in his Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion [14]. Hume’s character Philo asks:
Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he
impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he
both able and willing? whence then is evil? (p.57)

Simulation and Evil
If a simulated world disposes of the problem of theism by positing
simulators, is the problem of evil solved? The problem is solved in one
sense in that we are no longer struggling to reconcile the presence of
natural evil and suffering in the world with the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity. We still, however, are
faced with the morality/immorality of simulating a human world such as
ours. Pain, misery and suffering, after all are – as Chalmers [15] and
others suggest – still what they are in our experience just like tables,
chairs and electrons whether our world is simulated or not. Surely, it is evil
to construct such worlds. Reasons and motives are crucial here and –
along with Vinding and Jenkins – we might be inclined to agree that
simulations for entertainment purposes only are difficult to justify morally
whereas those informed by medical, social, historical research purposes
could be brought into the ethical domain.

The Meaning of Life
Would life cease to have meaning if we
discovered that our world was simulated?
No and here is why
Evidence from evolutionary, moral and
humanitarian research suggests that –
simulated or not – our world would continue
to develop and grow along broadly positive
and progressive lines

Evolution and Progress
Darwin had allowed for the development of moral instincts in
humans which rise above the ‘selfishness’ of our evolutionary
endowment to build communities defined by trust and
benevolence. Our big brains were ideally suited to the
precarious and desperate struggle for existence by our
ancestors as hunter-gatherers living on the savannah plains
200,000 years ago but, as Pinker [16] points out, once we had
such brains they could then be used for purposes beyond mere
survival such as making art, language, music and building
settled communities characterised by laws and moral codes.

Nature and Nurture
Dennett [17] puts the case powerfully in noting:
Dawkins’s title The Blind Watchmaker (1986) nicely
evokes the apparently paradoxical nature of these
[evolutionary] processes: on the one hand they are blind,
mindless, without goals, and on the other hand they
produce designed entities galore, many of which become
competent artificers (nest-builders, web-spinners, and so
forth) and a few become intelligent designers and
builders: us (p.37).

Simulation Hypothesis -Possible Futures?
In terms of optimistic/pessimistic futuristic speculations
are concerned, Bostrom’s own comments provide
endlessly fruitful scope for discussion. He makes the
following observation in relation to the three proposals of
his argument:
We may hope that (3) is true since that would decrease
the probability of (1), although if computational
constraints make it likely that simulators would
terminate a simulation before it reaches a posthuman
level, then our best hope would be that (2) is true
(p.13).

Which Future?
It certainly does seem to be the case that believing that (2) – that
civilisation has achieved an advanced stage and not wiped itself out, but
has no interest in constructing ancestor simulations – is true is obviously
more positive and optimistic than its opposite. However, the notion that
‘unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost
certainly never run an ancestor-simulation’ must count in favour of
supporting the full simulation hypothesis of (3).
On this account, our own lives go on governed by evolutionary forces
and the laws of physics (driven, of course, by the original designs of
simulators, much like Deist views) but now informed by the notion that
an advanced civilisation of our descendants may still be actively
interested in their ancestors and, perhaps, using simulations to learn
how to promote their own continued development.

Benefits of Simulation Belief
The simulation hypothesis provides powerful
ammunition for settling long-standing arguments and
dilemmas such as the following:
• speculations about deities and creation can finally be
replaced by exploratory discourse about simulation
and its implications for the future of our civilisation
• The problem of evil is dissolved since – if we are in a
simulation – the only remaining problems are how to
ensure the survival and future flourishing of humanity

More Benefits
• Anomalies in physics concerning quantum level weirdness or
dark energy/matter strangeness can be seen in terms of
simulation glitches which may be solved as quantum
computing power helps us to understand the code-based
construction of reality by human consciousness
• Arrogance and hubris in human culture may be replaced by
the philosophical humility of a Socratic curiosity which
emphasizes the continuous pursuit of knowledge and
understanding in a spirit of openness, embodied rationality
and ethical commitment to an idea of human perfection
which, though never fully attained, is nevertheless, constantly
refreshing and life-affirming

Simulation, Death and Immortality
We might speculate that – as simulated beings – there is a much better
chance of us having an afterlife, perhaps in other simulated sites of
consciousness, than in a non-simulated world in which (unless we are
utterly convinced by religious dogma) we will eventually be extinguished
forever. In this sense, simulation theory can be life-affirming.
Viewed in this positive light, we might choose to delight in the unknown,
rejoicing in Schopenhauer’s epigram: ‘After your death you will be
what you were before birth’. Simulation perspectives legitimately
help us to place a more attractive gloss on such a notion. Perhaps,
before birth we were not nothing but – against the background of
quantum fluctuations in the vast regions of space-time – in a simulated
universe we may be potential bearers of human consciousness in a yet-
to-be simulated world.

Post-Human Artificial Intelligence
In a recent TED talk, Bostrom [18]speculates
that strong AI (general artificial intelligence to
match human capability) can probably be
achieved by 2040-2050. At this point – a
moment of ‘superintelligence singularity’ – AI
will explode and produce an exponential
expansion of capacity which exceeds by leaps
and bounds our current human powers.

Superintelligence
In SuperIntelligence [19], Bostrom recommends the
following ‘common good principle’
Superintelligence should be developed only for the
benefit of all of humanity and in the service of
widely shared ethical ideals...Establishing from an
early stage that the immense potential of
superintelligence belongs to all of humanity will
give more time for such a norm to become
entrenched (p.312).

Constant Exploration
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And to know the place for the first time
T.S. Eliot (1944). Four Quartets – Little Gidding
(London: Faber & Faber)

References
[1] Plato (1982 edn). The Republic. (Harmondsworth: Penguin) Trans. H.D.P. Lee
[2] Descartes (1968 edn). Discourse on Method. (Harmondsworth: Penguin) Trans. F.E.
Sutcliffe
[3] Heaton, A. (2014). 7 Pieces of Evidence which prove The Matrix is really about
Buddhism. http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/matrix-about-buddhism/
[4] Olendzki, A.(2010). Unlimiting Mind: The Radically Experiential Psychology of
Buddhism (Boston: Wisdom Publications)
[5] Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?. Philosophical
Quarterly. 53 (211):243 255. (First version: 2001)
‐
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
See also the later extended interview with Bostrom on Youtube
https://youtu.be/nnl6nY8YKHs
[6] Popper, K.(1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (London: Hutchinson)
[7] Brockman, J.(ed)(2005). What We Believe But Cannot Prove. (London: Simon &
Schuster) also Baggott, J.(2013). Farewell to Reality: How Fairytale Physics Betrays
the Search for Scientific Truth. (London: Constable & Robinson)

References (2)
[8] Ringel, Z & Kovrizhin, D. L.(2017). Quantized gravitational responses, the sign
problem, and quantum complexity. Science Advances 27, Sep 2017: 3(9),
e1701758, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701758
[9] Vinding, M. (2014). The Meaning of Life: An Examination of Purpose (
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/504618)
[10] Masterson, A. (2018). Two-qubit chip draws quantum computing closer.
Cosmos. 21/8/18,file
:///C:/Users/Terry/Desktop/Twoqubit%20chip%20draws%20quantum%20computi
ng%20closer%20%20%20Cosmos.htm
[11] Carmichael, J.(2016). Why Elon Musk’s Simulation Argument Fails. Inverse.
2/6/16
[12] George Smoot – You Are Living in a Computer Simulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow&feature=youtu.be
[13] Jenkins, P.S.(2006). Historical Simulations – Motivational, Ethical and Legal
Issues. .Journal of Futures Studies. 11(1), 23-42
[14] Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion .
https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/david-hume.html

References (3)
[15] David Chalmers on the Simulation Argument
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/4trfmx/skepticism_and_
the_simulation_hypothesis_david/
[16] Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason,
Science, Humanism and Progress. (London: Allen Lane)
also Pinker,S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature. (London:
Penguin)
[17] Dennett, D.(2018). From Bach to Bacteria: The Evolution of Minds
(London: Penguin)
[18] TED talk – Nick Bostrom – What Happens When Our Computers
Get Smarter Than We Are? https://youtu.be/MnT1xgZgkpk
[19] Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press)

Simulation and the Matrix Argument Prob

More Related Content

Similar to Simulation and the Matrix Argument Prob (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Simulation and the Matrix Argument Prob