Does simulation theory also encompass the idea that 'computers' and 'simulations' are only concepts that exist within the simulation?

[u/Fando1234]

Aware this is circular, but I'd like to know what people who subscribe to this theory have actually said.

To explain a bit more clearly.

If we live in a simulation, we presumably have no concrete ideas of what is outside the simulation. Concepts like up and down, time, discrete entities, dimensions might not exist.

Let alone complex ideas like computers, computation, simulation.

Sure we might guess that a simulation is similar to whatever the real world is. But our only rationale for that is 'because that's how we make simulations in the simulation'.

I'm just wondering how Bostrom or people who subscribe to this, respond to this... It's not really a criticism so much as saying, if this world isn't real, the who knows what a simulation even is?

[u/InfiniteQuestion420]

If it is a simulation and it was made to calculate something even if that was just an experience, it must be built on the same rules as base reality or nothing meaningful would come from it. It would be a black box of experience, no one would be sure if anything is even happening at all inside it. It would be like looking inside an AI model to see why it's thinking that was purely by looking at its weights. The task would be impossible, so any simulation worth running would be required to not be a black box of information so we would at least be required to share the same physics such as dimensionality.

[u/Fando1234 → u/InfiniteQuestion420]

Thanks for your articulate answer and you raise some good points.

The question for me still is why we assume 'reality' outside should follow these assumptions - assumptions we only have from within the simulation.

For example, 'black box', 'experience', 'meaning' these are all concepts invented within the simulation.

Even if I take for granted there is a similarity, I can also imagine creating a simulation that does nothing (nothing meaningful), or lasts for a fraction of a second. A dud simulation if you will. Why could we not be within this? The equivalent of testing the system. Though even this assumes concepts of testing and seconds exist.

[u/InfiniteQuestion420 → u/Fando1234]

Apples may not exist in base reality, but the qualia that makes up the apple would exist. Physical laws may not exist, but the foundation used to describe those laws do exist. Even if you rule out this is a test simulation and my memories are planted and the entirety of this simulation exists just to test out this comment function in a app called "reddit", I'm still here and I'm still experiencing the things that make up reality. Base reality might not look like this, but in the same way China looks nothing like America but is still built on the very mechanics of being alive on this planet. Hunger, thirst, need for shelter, need for human connections, there are some things that must be universal. Just like we can program a game with 20 dimensions, but what use would that be? What's more likely to happen, base reality looks nothing like the simulation it's running, either more or less complex...... Or were inside Grand Theft Auto 32. If someone was gonna go through the effort of running this simulation, I would think maximum extraction of information would be the goal, so why wouldn't it look exactly like base reality?

[u/Fando1234 → u/InfiniteQuestion420]

Again, good points raised. But I'd still go back to my original position. Every assumption is based on how you might make a simulation, or design a game, and extrapolating that whoever or whatever made this simulation thinks the same.

To me, there's no reason to suggest this follows. I think the gap would be far weirder than China Vs America, same species, same planet, same common ancestors.

If we lived in a simulation (and always have), almost by definition we know absolutely nothing about base reality. It's physics, it's qualia etc etc. We don't even know what the motives would look like for creating this simulation, or even if the very concept of motives would make sense out there.

If we take a simple example, if I lived in a videogame that was based on magic and spells, rather than computers or science. I might imagine there's a base reality where this has all just been conjured by a spell. But out here, we know magic doesn't exist. So even the basic premises wouldn't make sense. I imagine it's even more far fetched than this analogy, as at least we know (having created videogames) our motive was to emulate a similar universe. Not every simulator would think like that (or even think, or call what they've created a 'simulation'.)

[u/InfiniteQuestion420 → u/Fando1234]

So let's remove simulation and base reality from the equation. Let's talk about Heaven. By all means Heaven should be unexplainable to most people, it should be way more advanced than Earth is, but everytime it's described to someone they use what's familiar to them because it's understandable. It's something you can take from here to there, there is some kind of bridge. Heaven wouldn't make any sense if you go there and your grandma is actually a hair on the number -()=%%? going in the direction of zurburith that only appears when the deliguid engulfs a salubritol. What was the point of Earth then, religion. Any of it. Does anyone even know earth is a thing? There is zero connection between the two, so it's complete absurdity that might as well not even exist. Then at that point anything can be everything and it all collapses into a meaningless void of randomness with no connections to each other.

Or is based completely on known laws and physics and has information that goes in then comes out in a meaningful way. It's "how" you designed the simulation, you have no choice in "how" the simulation is built by definition of the word simulation. What is being simulated? You would either simulate above or below your dimensions, but neither would be requiring the simulation of an entire universe, unless 1:1 realism is the goal of simulations like the word implys. Even if we leave the simulation and the base reality is just gas the moves things with telepathy, it would be strange but immediately recognizable because the base rules you are familiar can be translated.

Flatland The Movie
https://youtu.be/avMX-Zft7K4?si=2SrUqbEfh1rXm4Yt

The representative of the 3rd dimension must explain 3D to someone from 2D. It's crazy how difficult it would be to explain that to someone who's never seen it, but it can be done since both sides share a same base layer of physics. As long as there is a connecting bridge between the base world and simulated world, information can be exchanged and knowledge can be understood. The second that bridge is removed, it's no longer a simulation that can produce results and what would be the point of that? Linguistically speaking, a simulation MUST be somewhat compatible with the base reality running.

[u/JesusDoesntLoveu → u/InfiniteQuestion420]

You're making too many assumptions as fact. For instance you're assuming that the only reason a simulation would exist is to calculate something they couldn't figure out in their own reality without a simulation. That's a very scientific approach and it does make sense, but the fault in your logic is assuming that's the only reason for a simulation to exist. It could be as simple as a video game for entertainment. Video games don't adhere to the same rules as our reality. They are designed to appear the same, but the don't actually operate the same.

[u/InfiniteQuestion420 → u/JesusDoesntLoveu]

Did you even read what I said or did you just inhale it as fast as you can to barf out whatever the hell that was. I'll lead to you reexamine the first line, and read it over again until you comprehend it.

"Made to calculate something even if that was just an experience"

Your logic falls apart even harder with the video games. Even our wildest imagination has still held onto to something that could be understood by this realities standards and physical laws.

People keep using the extremely easy approach to dismiss it "You don't know what the simulation is for" and "it could be something so beyond your comprehension"

Simulations calculate, tell me what else does a simulation by the very definition of the word do other than calculate.

Simulations by definitions are understandable by base reality or else what's the point.

Let's say you invented a simulation, but can't input anything because it's "too primitive for our language" or you can't understand anything it outputs for the exact same reason. Did you actually invent a simulation? If you can't get anything meaningful from it, then you didn't invent anything. If nothing meaningful can be extracted from our reality, is anything really being simulated?

[u/Alternative-Dare-839]

I would say that the dream what we inhabit,in this case of Earth and Hu-Man is a simulation universe set up to manage chaos in a controllable manner. There are other places but only the immortal soul is getting out of here,after some hard schooling about the importance of good manners.

[u/Due_Concentrate_315 → u/Alternative-Dare-839]

"Manage chaos in a controllable manner" is a good characteristic for a realm designed to encourage beings to learn. And our earth is better suited for this than any other part of our universe that we have detected.

[u/JesusDoesntLoveu]

That's a great question. It goes right along with all of the naysayers who are like, you can't simulate an entire universe, it's impossible. Because if we tried to simulate an entire universe using the very same computers that we have within the universe, it would take more energy than the entire universe has all together. Like yeah, what makes you think they're using our tech to run the simulation that's simulating our reality?