# Against the Simulation Hypothesis
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 28, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334 "2016-10-28T14:11:42Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 9
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/161 "2016-11-02T22:58:25Z")
However you slice it, it still equals The one.
I’m not negating a more advanced species, but at the same time The one would have developed them too.
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 11:39pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/162 "2016-11-02T23:39:20Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> Exactly. Nietzsche had the crucial historically relevant problem in genealogy, when he used ‘herkunft’ and ‘ursprung’ at times differently, as contradictive.
You know what the words “Herkunft” and “Ursprung” mean? Both words refer to the origin/s. As far as I remember, Nietzsche said something about the opposite of “Herkunft” and “Zukunft”, because “Herkunft” does not only mean “origin” but also “past”, whereas “Zukunft” always means “future”.
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/163 "2016-11-02T23:45:18Z")
But the slicing of the words, is redeemed by him in identifying both as having a resembling commonality, in the same sense as ‘IS’ is also ambiguous, or rather only different in a variable sense of resemblance.
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/164 "2016-11-02T23:49:01Z")
In fact they are not spliced at all, in the same sense of having resemblance, only as much as it is logically prescribed. If IT IS not, then it’s only because the genealogical derivation has veered out of relevance.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/165 "2016-11-02T23:55:50Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> In fact they are not spliced at all, in the same sense of having resemblance, only as much as it is logically prescribed. If IT IS not, then it’s only because the genealogical derivation has veered out of relevance.
Biting the hand that feeds, IT is probably laughing at our microscope.
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/166 "2016-11-03T00:09:41Z")
While it IS biting, those looking at IT think they have the last laugh, though, because while IT is laughing, THEY are genotyping and genoslicing IT.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/167 "2016-11-03T00:14:32Z")
No THEY aren’t. Are you trying to be funny again? If so, 😆 !
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/168 "2016-11-03T00:17:31Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> No THEY aren’t. Are you trying to be funny again? If so, 😆 !
Not unless you be IT. But if You be Them, then perhaps.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 12:21am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/169 "2016-11-03T00:21:00Z")
IT is my everything, yours too. =D\> So who’s laughing again?
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 12:29am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/170 "2016-11-03T00:29:57Z")
> [@Carleas](#):
>
> > [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
> >
> > Violence prone out of necessity(then) versus violence prone out of unnecessary “frustration”(now)
> >
> > I really don’t need to read that book to understand…
>
> Apparently you do. The violence of the past wasn’t out of necessity. Children were executed for petty crimes. People were tortured to death, not to get information, just to inflict suffering. Violence and pain were sources of entertainment: where modern sports involve some violence, injuries are avoided, and death is rare and tragic; in the past, suffering, injury, and death were the whole point.
>
> A major shift in the development towards humanity has been an expanding sphere of concern, and a distaste for suffering in anyone. Modernity is incredibly cushy, peaceful, caring. It might not seem that way, but consider that your daily experiences aren’t a representative sample: they’re skewed by what information is repeated, and they don’t include much if anything of the level and nature of violence in the past.
>
> Again, I recommend the book, it was a challenging and perspective expanding read.
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > That is your presumption. And I am trying to explain why you are wrong about that presumption.
>
> I mean, I’m presuming we’re talking about a simulation. And I’m using as an analogy for the relationship between the Simulators and the simulation our own relationship between ourselves and computer simulations we make (and that’s what Bostrom’s paper is about). So if you mean that I’m presuming that, then yes: we’re talking about the Simulation Hypothesis, I’m presuming a simulation.
>
> Let’s put what appears to be your claim into our world: If we were to run a simulated world on a computer, are you saying it would be impossible in principle for us to influence the processes within that simulation? We can edit the memory, the processors, every piece of the hardware and software, and we can do this while the simulation is paused. Are you saying that the simulation can nonetheless detect our changes? Why?
>
> We certainly can make a program that can’t detect our changes, right? I can edit Microsoft Word so it things I typed something I didn’t, and Microsoft Word will have no idea. So why would we assume that, even if it were possible to make a simulation that would be impossible to deceive (which is dubious), that our simulation would be that kind?
>
> It seems as though, like Mongoose, you’re assuming a transcendent soul that could somehow escape the confines of the very circuits of which it is composed.
History manipulated. Do you believe everything you read?
More like ask for release Carleas. Autonomy, independence, etc.
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:23am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/171 "2016-11-03T06:23:15Z")
> [@Carleas](#):
>
> We certainly can make a program that can’t detect our changes, right? I can edit Microsoft Word so it things I typed something I didn’t, and Microsoft Word will have no idea. So why would we assume that, even if it were possible to make a simulation that would be impossible to deceive (which is dubious), that our simulation would be that kind?
If that IT is the case then this will be very very far down the line, we’ll have already made robots, solar powered glocks, trash compactors (that work), flying ships, a pill of invincibility, macro-wave ovens, Carnot refrigerators, self-flushing toilets, food synthesizers, laser instruments (for death or music), self-embalming machines, and all kinds of advanced super-technological gadgetry crap.
---
### Author:  [@surreptitious57](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/surreptitious57)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 8:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/172 "2016-11-03T08:11:38Z")
Machines may not yet be dominant but they are ubiquitous and many of them have processing capability far in excess of what humans can do. Such as the ones you are all using to read this on. Given enough time they shall achieve a degree of independence that will make us superfluous to requirement. Which is a consequence
of the inevitability of technological advancement. What we do with all the free time that shall create is both a global psychological and financial problem of which the latter is arguably by far the more serious. Although it should be pointed out that this semi dystopian view may not actually come to pass. So I am not therefore presenting it as if it will happen but as if it might happen. Since one should avoid the temptation to be absolute when making predictions with regard to the future for rather obvious reasons [though I do not claim to be making a prediction rather an interpretation] However if I had the capability to do so I would primarily for the sake of curiosity fast forward to ten thousand years from now. Just to see what society actually was like as I think this would be a requisite amount of time for profound change to have occurred. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate my interpretation would be. That would actually make zero difference to me anyway
---
### Author:  [@Carleas](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Carleas)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 12:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/173 "2016-11-03T12:50:10Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#):
>
> Did it ever occur to anyone, that just like we have decompilers and game genies…
>
> That you have this massive thriving variety of gamers that have different motivations, and as such, many would let the “sims” know?
I think this is right. Bostrom uses the term “ancestor simulations” throughout his paper. I think I understand why he does so: it lets our future, where we think we’ll be able to simulate minds, be relevant; it connects the wild idea with the world we know. But if we’re really talking about the possibility of simulation, it seems that odds are very good that the number of minds like ours that aren’t simulated ancestors of the Simulators, but are games or research projects or art or fiction, significantly outnumbers the number that are.
> [@Pneumatic-Coma](#):
>
> If that IT is the case then this will be very very far down the line…
Bostrom’s trick is to say, picture us, very very far down the line, making new minds in simulations of the world at the start of the 21st century. Now ask: wouldn’t those minds, presented with this idea, but just as able to say, “Well, if that is the case, it will be very, very far down the line…”?
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:03pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/174 "2016-11-03T13:03:03Z")
It’s also a sort of an inverted infinite regress Turing test carleas…
Once you sim, how do you prove you’re not in one as well, right?
We go off the assumption that they know they’re the real ones here… Maybe they don’t !
🙂
In the matrix, we have no proof that Zion wasn’t part of the matrix as well
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/175 "2016-11-03T13:09:02Z")
Carleas,
For arguement’s sake, and there are many sakes involved, wouldn’t it be prudent to investigate the probability that we are in a simulation, are the simulation and the likely “reality” that The Creator of all simulations, The Godhead, is revealing his presence through this very sentence, this concept, this probability by a mongoose who’s maniacal? 
Everything is real is the perspective we need to indulge in, Ec? Everything is relative. Correlatables are needed.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:14pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/176 "2016-11-03T13:14:30Z")
Is there a scientific research team that is sifting through words, sentences, that draws upon online relatables in regards to anomolies and phenomena? That data needs retrieval, compilation, weeding out with correlatable inclusions.
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/177 "2016-11-03T13:16:29Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> Carleas,
>
> For arguement’s sake, and there are many sakes involved, wouldn’t it be prudent to investigate the probability that we are in a simulation, are the simulation and the likely “reality” that The Creator of all simulations, The Godhead, is revealing his presence through this very sentence, this concept, this probability by a mongoose who’s maniacal? 
>
> Everything is real is the perspective we need to indulge in, Ec? Everything is relative. Correlatables are needed.
Real in some way, absolutely… That’s the logical reduction of correlatables…
Besides, I don’t believe everything is relative, the moment relative becomes relative… It’s absolute
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/178 "2016-11-03T13:18:08Z")
Can an absolute be so bad? It would be definitive.  Inquiring minds do want, darest I say need, to know.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/179 "2016-11-03T13:31:43Z")
Do people deserve the truth or not?
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/180 "2016-11-03T13:46:08Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> Do people deserve the truth or not?
Deserve?
It’s a strange word… Did I deserve to be smart enough and good enough to deserve something more than someone who is not both those things (did they deserve not to be both those things?)
These are problems of additional layers I work on in life
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334.md?page=10)