#Simulation hypothesis movie#

WeРІР‚в„ўve discovered that this is a world thatРІР‚в„ўs made of information, itРІР‚в„ўs a world thatРІР‚в„ўs made of bits. WeРІР‚в„ўve discovered something about what the physical world is made of, about the metaphysics of the physical world, if you like. Should we say, РІР‚СљThey donРІР‚в„ўt existРІР‚Сњ? I think not! I think we should say that weРІР‚в„ўve discovered something about what tables, and chairs, and buildings are made of. And the tables, and chairs, and buildings around me are all coming from a computer simulation. Just say it turns out that we discover somehow that weРІР‚в„ўre in the РІР‚ВmatrixРІР‚в„ў. But if weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation, all this is still perfectly real. My view is that yes, itРІР‚в„ўs possible that weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation. So now it seems all the more likely that we canРІР‚в„ўt know about these things and the external world at all.РІР‚СњР”Р„t this point I think maybe thereРІР‚в„ўs a philosophical mistake going on in the traditional analysis of this example. So many philosophers would now say, РІР‚СљItРІР‚в„ўs likely that all of this is an illusion because if weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation РІР‚вЂњ none of this is real. It actually can seem quite likely that weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation. So this makes the original challenge from Rene Descartes all the more pressing now. I canРІР‚в„ўt say that I know that it is, but I also canРІР‚в„ўt say, РІР‚СљI know that itРІР‚в„ўs notРІР‚Сњ. I think maybe thereРІР‚в„ўs a very significant possibility that all of this right now is simulated. Philosopher David Schmidtz on consequentialism, Kantianism, and the philosophical concept of goodnessAnd itРІР‚в„ўs an idea that I do take seriously. But itРІР‚в„ўs at least a reason to take very seriously the idea that weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation. So this is a kind of statistical argument that maybe you should consider it very likely that weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation or either itРІР‚в„ўs very likely that weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulation where something goes wrong to stop simulations from developing. ThereРІР‚в„ўre so many simulated beings: the odds are tiny that I would be unsimulated. And you ask yourself a questions: how do I know that I am unsimulated? It starts to seem much more likely that I am simulated. When you start thinking about this: well, for every unsimulated person there will be thousands and millions of simulated people.

Once you start thinking about this, you think, well, for every person in one of these universes they might create hundreds of simulated universes and eventually the simulated universes will greatly outnumber the original universe and the simulated people will outnumber the original people. Eventually we will be running SimUniverse РІР‚вЂњ simulating the whole universes, as the technology gets better and better almost any intelligent civilization could be expected to run many simulations with many universes and many simulated beings. Now we all run videogames with small simulated worlds: the Sims, SimCity, SimLife. The idea is something like this: simulation technology is getting better and better. This problem recently has been actually made much more acute by a contribution from a philosopher Nick Bostrom whoРІР‚в„ўs given a statistical argument, that maybe we are in a computer simulation. How could you know that youРІР‚в„ўre not in a computer simulation, if you are in a computer simulation РІР‚вЂњ nothing is real, so how can you know anything at all? So many philosophers can think, this example from the case of computer technology is a beautiful dramatization of DescartesРІР‚в„ў challenge. Or maybe IРІР‚в„ўm just part of the simulation myself: my brain is simulated, the world is simulated, none of it is real.

#Simulation hypothesis movie#

Maybe weРІР‚в„ўre in a simulated world much like the world depicted in the movie The Matrix, where thereРІР‚в„ўs a computer that runs the world with models of trees, and cars, and buildings, but actually my brainРІР‚в„ўs just receiving all these signals from the simulated world and none of it is real. The modern version of this fable of DescartesРІР‚в„ў is raised by a hypothesis that weРІР‚в„ўre in a computer simulation. What we need to answer the skeptical problem is in some way to get beyond consciousness. So consciousness doesnРІР‚в„ўt yet get us to the external physical world, but it gives us a foothold, it at least gets us to the mental world. So I might have consciousness of a chair, or a tree, but can I know that the tree exists? I might just be hallucinating the tree, maybe someone has stimulated my brain to produce the illusion of a tree when itРІР‚в„ўs not real.

But it doesnРІР‚в„ўt yet get me to the world outside my consciousness. So this means that one thing I know about in the world is my consciousness. And really, I think he meant his own consciousness.

And he said, РІР‚СљThe one thing I can be certain of is my own mindРІР‚Сњ. He said, РІР‚СљI think, therefore I amРІР‚Сњ РІР‚вЂњ Cogito Ergo Sum. Philosopher David Chalmers on the combination problem, dualism, and panpsychismSo Descartes said, thereРІР‚в„ўs only one thing we can be certain of РІР‚вЂњ and thatРІР‚в„ўs our minds, our own consciousness.