I don’t think I understand. What if the people you are speaking to are nothing but programs? Well more to the point, how can you know they aren’t and handle the uncertainty.
Seems like the conclusion, that you wake up and find that anything meaningful you did was a computer program or something like it, would be rather terrifying.
Have you ever, in all your years of living, woken up to find you were in a program?
If this is all a programmed simulation, I’d like to lodge a complaint with the programmers.
I think your notion of the nature of a simulated universe is misguided.
In a simulated universe, the people you are speaking to are “nothing but programs” - and you are too - but only in the same sense that they are “programs” in a real universe. In other words, we obey the laws of physics that are specified for this simulation. The universe still started at the Big Bang, our understanding of cosmology and evolution and the rest of science is still correct. You, and the people you are talking too, still evolved. Our consciousness is still a (poorly understood) emergent property of natural processes under the physical laws of the universe.
The significant difference between a “real” universe and a simulated one is the notion that the laws of physics for the simulation were set up purposefully by some entity. And this may not be of any practical consequence at all for the entities within the universe.
Of course, there may be fun ideas like trying to spot a “glitch” in the simulation; or that this simulation may have started much more recently from a saved backup; of speculating on whether the simulation has a specific purpose. But absent evidence of such things, I don’t think there are too may practical consequences to whether the universe is real or simulated. What’s the difference between a “real” universe in which we don’t understand “why there is something rather than nothing”, or why the laws of physics are what they are, and a simulated one?
The OP mentions two distinct situations: we’re all living in a simulation, or nothing else but me exists and I’m hallucinating everything. These scenarios get different responses.
The simulation. There’s not actually much difference between ‘reality as a simulation’ and ‘reality as reality’. No, really! In both cases the universe does exist in a functional and ongoing state and all the entities within it have an actualized and distinct reality. There’s no reason to feel lonely or isolated; you’re not lonely or isolated - there are other people all around and they’re real entities distinct from yourself. Honestly the only disturbing thing about ‘reality as a simulation’ is that it presupposes that this simulation was created by some entity, which inherently puts our realty in danger of being messed with or destroyed by the capricious whims of its creator. Which is to say if you’re a religious person you would have no problems. Honestly, every religious person who believes in a metaphysical god already believes reality is a simulation anyway, whether they’ve thought about in those terms or not.
Solipsism. Solipsism is a somewhat more troubling possibility, because it supposes that I thought up Trump myself, which would make me one sick and disturbed puppy. It also supposes that I’ve imagined up all my family and friends in order to stave off the loneliness of an empty existence, while simultaneously imagining the rest of reality to give my fantasies a coherent setting. Or worse, I’m actually not imagining a coherent reality, and only think I am because in my madness I’m unable to recognize the incoherence of my mental images. Plus I’m totally wasting my potential - if I’m going to be imagining up the universe, why aren’t I imagining the ladies beating down my door? Dammit, I want a pony! Applejack, Twilight, or Fluttershy, preferably; the others would probably get on my nerves pretty quickly.
Between the two scenarios the simulation one is probably more likely. But if solipsism is true, well, at least you have the comfort of an active fantasy life.
Your business is very important to us. Please stay on the line for the next available programmer.
Oh, trust me, you don’t want to talk to a programmer. They’ll never tell you what you want to hear, assuming they’re comprehensible at all, and if they promise they’ll get right on that and fix a problem, they’re lying to you to get you to go away.
Cite: I’m a programmer.
I deal with it by enshrining that simple truth as the cornerstone on which everything else is built.
We are not certain, therefore we avoid adopting any other truths as things we can be certain of. (Yes, paradoxically, we can embrace our lack of certainty as one truth we really can hold on to).
We are not certain, therefore in all of our dealings with other people we should refrain from assuming that our understanding is correct and theirs is not; that our judgment is valid and theirs is in error.
We are not certain, therefore in crafting laws and policies and official social mechanisms of various types, we should avoid any that deal with conflicts of any sort or violations of standards of any sort from a beginning point of assuming we have an objective understanding of the situation, or that one is even possible.
The answer is found in fairly simple logic.
If everything is real, and not a simulation, you should act accordingly.
If it’s a simulation or an illusion, then it doesn’t MATTER that you react as though it’s real.
Therefore, with no certainty at all, logic says to assume existence is real, and act accordingly.
The way I like to put it, is an improved version of the old Descartes statement:
I think and sense, therefore I may as well assume I am.
I’d like to think that if I found myself in a state of fear and thinking this, that I’d ask myself if I was afraid of the thought or if that was a thought that came to mind when I was afraid. Because the mind will back-assign reasons to moods. But then I like to nit-pick emotions more than most people do.
This disturbs me, because it sounds like Pascal’s Wager. And also it’s wrong - if life is a simulation, and in that simulation the simulated cops will beat your butt and throw you in jail if you break laws, then it MATTERs whether you act like they’re real or not because there’s no functional difference between simulated pain and discomfort and actual pain and discomfort.
I don’t like this either - aside from the inherent pascalyness of it, you can’t actually be certain you do sense - you could be imagining it. A more correct improvement would be “I think therefore something exists which is related to my perception of self”, which is exactly as far as you can logically go.
I am well familiar with, and equally hostile to Pascal’s wager, but if you read more carefully, you will realize that my approach isn’t remotely the same as his.
Pascal played false with his insipid “wager.” Mainly, his fake reasoning actually asserts that a NON-BELIEVER should FAKE that they believe, in order to try to fool the all-knowing god into letting the non-believer into heaven.
What I’m pointing out, is that there’s no harm in EITHER case, if you act as though we are all real.
In other words, assume we are real and act accordingly you win; assume we are not real, but act as though we are, and you still win. Implied, are the other two cases: act as though we are NOT real when actually we are, and you are likely to have a rough go of things. Act as though we are NOT real, and we actually ARE NOT REAL, and there’s no such thing as “a rough go of things,” because it is UNDEFINED.
Either embrace the ambiguity, or find religion. I’ve chosen the former, but yes, I sometimes envy the most devout of adherents of various faiths. At the risk of going on a tangent, I have long suspected that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary advantage that probably allowed early humans to justify swimming in rough waters to catch fish or to chase after those dangerous animals on the hunt.
FWIW, I believe that parallel universes and quantum realities are possible. Not sure if I completely by into the Hugh Everett many worlds theory but it’s interesting as hell.
There is a third option - ignore the ambiguity. It’s pretty easy to find other things to think about, like delicious cake. Which remains delicious even if it is, like all of reality, a lie.
I was thinking Pascal’s Wager way upthread, when adaher said “…if you have to make a decision based on uncertainty,” because this is precisely the situation Pascal addresses.
[QUOTE=Blaise Pascal]
A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=igor frankensteen]
Pascal played false with his insipid “wager.” Mainly, his fake reasoning actually asserts that a NON-BELIEVER should FAKE that they believe, in order to try to fool the all-knowing god into letting the non-believer into heaven.
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t think this is what Pascal was saying. This is where Pascal addresses the unbeliever:
[QUOTE=Pascal]
“I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
[/QUOTE]
If I understand correctly what he’s saying, he’s advising the unbeliever to “fake it till you make it,” not to fool God, but to “naturally make you believe” and to “lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.”
And this advice might still apply if what you’re “faking” is belief in the realness of reality instead of the realness of the Christian God.
(Here’s where I’m getting my Pascal quotes: http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/Pascal_Wager.htm)
I’m not actually certain that Pascal was arguing for fakery; I always got the impression that he expected non-christians to actually convert to the right/safe path.
If we’re not real because this is a simulation, you could certainly have “a rough go of things”, on account of the other simulated people around you beating your simulated butt up. Which, under the simulated model, you’d definitely feel.
Under the solipsism model, it really comes down to whether reality is really something that I can manipulate with my whims, as opposed to being a stubbornly self-consistent figment that stubbornly refuses to allow me to dismiss the people approaching me with baseball bats via will alone. If my solipsistic reality is stubborn like that, I once again am not going to avoid “a rough go of things”.
On the other hand, if reality is a figment of my imagination that I can manipulate by force of will, then, well, it sure hasn’t acted like that so far! But maybe I’m just doing it wrong, and if I imagine it just right, I’ll suddenly be able to manipulate my perceived reality by whim alone! Which would be awesome!
Which is why every now and then I try and move something telekinetically, just to see if I suddenly can. But I don’t do anything that might result in baseball bats, because three out of four cases say that baseball bats still hurt.
(That’s the real problem with your argument, by the way - you’re drawing a distinction between things that aren’t distinct. The reality model, the simulation model, and the stubborn solipsism model all are exactly the same from a functional perspective. Well, give or take that the simulation model enforces belief in a creator.)
Irregardless of the Simulation Hypothesis, for everything you think and do in life, you’re better to assume that you are probably in the wrong and that what you’re doing is either meaningless or bad. There’s nothing soul-crushing or nihilistic about that, it’s simply looking back at history and learning from it.
Once you accept that what you’re doing is simply the best you know to muddle through with, but are satisfied that you are indeed doing your best given the gross lack of guidance, adding the Simulation Hypothesis on top doesn’t really change anything. It might be true. It might not be true. Ultimately, all you can do is deal with the things in your life as best you can do them, based on what you know.
After all, given how likely we are to be wrong on everything, not being very careful about your choices is liable to only be more wrong and meaningless.
It just doesn’t matter. If we’re part of a simulation, this is still the universe we inhabit. It makes no difference.
To ignore the ambiguity is to embrace it.
I think therefore I am
Could be…,
or perhaps I’m really someone else
who only thinks he’s me.