Simulation Scenarios

Barry Dainton
Preliminary (crude) definitions: real
v. simulated
 An experience is simulated if it is produced
by non-standard methods in a controlled
fashion
 non-standard = NOT by bodies/brains
interacting with physical environment
 Eg. Demons, computers

 A life (or part of one) is

virtual if it is
composed of simulated experiences.
 Just suppose:
 That when the
universe is
considered as a
whole, from a God’s
eye vantage point,
simulated lives greatly
outnumber real lives
 Call this scenario:
‘simulation
dominance’
Simulation Dominance

real

virtual

sum total of conscious lives (in

entire universe, all times)
Simulation Argument (one form)
 Simulation Dominance is probable
 No reason to think:
 human lives are less likely to be simulated
than other types
 early C21-type human lives are less likely to
be simulated than other types
 So: it is probable that our lives are
simulated.
 The Simulation Argument (Bostrom)
 Simulation Hypothesis: for every non-virtual
early 21st century human life there are many
subjectively indistinguishable (or broadly
similar) virtual lives

REAL VIRTUAL
 Simulation Argument: cont.
 Your conviction that your life is non-virtual
is no better founded than anybody else’s.

 So: if the Simulation Hypothesis is true,

the odds of your life being non-virtual are
low (e.g. 1 in 10)
 Everyone believes their own lives to
be real, non-virtual …

I’m I’m I’m I’m

I’m real!
real! real! real! real!

R
R

I’m I’m I’m I’m

real! real! real! real!
Simulation Argument: conclusion
High probability Low probability

‘SH is
true’
‘My life
is real’
Low probability High probability

Probability assignments (not to scale)

 An old theme with
a new twist
The Matrix
Tipler
The Truman Are we leading
Show virtual lives?
Bostrom
Vanilla Sky
Are we living in
Permutation a simulation? Chalmers
City

… and sudden McGinn

The 13 Floor
th
notoriety
 ‘Could my Logically Threat
Possible Descartes?
life be a = idle
(merely)
simulation?’

Nomologically Standard
possible vat-brains?
(merely) Most sci-fi?
Threa
Simulation t
Argument =
Nomologically Tipler, real!
possible Bostrom,
(& quite likely!) posthumanists
My aims here:

“Simulation Argument”
conclusion: take
simulation menace
(somewhat) seriously

extend range address queries explore

ramifications
Next: Why believe menacing
simulations might exist in the
required (vast) numbers?

actual virtual
60 billion?
6 billion
600 billion??

Type-2003 day/life streams

Another distinction:

Two methods
of simulation
generation

S-simulations H-simulations

Two types of
simulation
S-simulations: H-simulations:
 conscious lives  conscious lives
generated by produced by
running software on directly tampering
computer with neural
 (NOT brains!) hardware
 Matrix-style
 vat-brain

COMPUTER COMPUTER
ALONE + BRAIN
 S-sims: the high-road

‘posthumanism’

computers of repositories of
VAST power most conscious life
 Tipler many simulations
of every possible human
‘universal computer’
stream of consciousness
(of finite duration)

Bostrom
Time required
for running of
Planetary-mass ‘ancestor
computer simulation’ =
10-7 seconds
1042 ops

(one of
many)
‘Ancestor simulation’ = simulation of
entire mental history of humankind

Typical human brain: Ops required for 1

operations per ancestor simulation =
second = 1014 - 1017 1032-35

100 billion humans x 50 years/human x 3 million secs per

year x 1014 – 1017 ops per brain per second

(assumption: humankind superseded in

a few centuries)
S-simulations: low road
 Desktop PC Power: next few years

Predictions:
Kurzweil, computational
Moravec power
100 million
ops
Supercomputer (circa typical human
2000) = 10 million ops brain

time 2030-40

‘Moore’s Law’: computational power per $

doubles every two years
 S-simulations: low road
 Small-scale sims; on small machines (e.g.
desktop)
 In large numbers …
 entertainment: God-games (‘The Sims’)
 research: historical, political
• E.g. exploring counterfactual histories
 Over many years (a few centuries)
 = billions of menacing simulations
 God games: ‘The Sims’,
‘Civilization’, etc.

 Currently, their ‘inhabitants’ are not

conscious
 In future: that could change
 more processing power/memory
 more autonomous characters -> more
entertaining spectacles
An ordinary (virtual) family: ‘The Sims’
 Sample numbers:
 20 million simulated T(2003) day-streams
per year
 assume: very large future population
 For 100,000 years
 assume: quite long future
 Total of: 2000 billion menacing d-streams
 So: significant simulation menace (50%)
 approx 2000 billion actual 2003 d-streams
 S-simulations: how great a menace?

programming
time
know-how virtual lives
in
computational inclination VAST numbers
power

BUT! BUT!

presupposes very
controversial theory of
mind
 Q: How worrying
Very! is the computational It’s
not!
simulation menace?

classical
materialism
functionalism

non-reductive classical
functionalism dualism

Shoemaker Descartes
Lycan Smart/Place
Loar Searle
Chalmers Strawson
McGinn
 Broadening Other sources
‘appeal’ of of menacing
simulations
Sim. Arg.

sims run on H-SIMS

brains
Neural interface technology
 H-SIMS: high road

brain-computer
interface
gene nano-
manipulation engineered

fully immersive
VR

psychology perception
 H-SIMS: low road

controlled
hallucinations
implant drug
assisted assisted
exploit known
brain potential

fully immersive VR
One scenario: VR in education
 Imagine: a typical 23rd
century history lesson
 Topic: life as an
ordinary 21st century
person
 Method: fully immersive
virtual reality ‘trip’ to
the past
 Spend a few hours AS
an ordinary 21st century
person
 H-sims: will the technologies ever
be developed?
 It is hard for us to envisage how (say) brain-
machine interfaces of the kind required could be
designed & implemented.
 But: remember Arthur C. Clarke’s ‘Third Law’:
‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic’
 Think: what would a 19th century person have
made of modern computers, atomic weapons,
genetic manipulation, etc.
H-sims technology: further reasons
for ‘optimism’
 Neuroscience: we still have much to learn
 Research in nano-technology,
programmable matter continues apace
 Money no problem: entertainment industry
 computer games bigger than movies
 MMOG phenomenon: indicator of what’s to
come?
 ‘massive multiplayer
MMOG online gaming’

‘persistent world games’

Ultima Online
Everquest participants = 120,000 (simul)
Anarchy Online
notoriously addictive
…….

MMPORG ‘massive, multiplayer, online

role-playing game
MMOG: screenshots
 MMOG MMPORG

Big money in sim technology!

H-sims: relevant prediction

‘VR trips to the

past’

if possible … VERY numerous

VR-vacations: sample numbers
 Actual 2003 d-streams: 2 x 1012
 Assume:
 every sim-age person takes 1 trip to early 21 st
century
 10,000 sim-age generations
 average sim-age population = 10 billion
 Yields: 1.0 x 1014 virtual streams
 So: 1/50 chance of your life being real
 Menacing Simulations:
further possible source

MODAL REALISM

menacing S-sims menacing H-sims

= infinite = infinite

Lewis, Tegmark
 MODAL REALISM

real lives ∞
virtual
lives
∞
50% chance of
virtuality

MANY WORLDS?
 Where do we stand?
A. Humankind will have a long and
successful future.
B. Technology will make realistic sims
possible, and these will be created
frequently, in varied forms. tension

C. You and I exist in the early 21 st

century
tension
D. Modal Realism is true.
 High probability
More confident

‘A &B ‘C
true’ true’
‘These
experiences
occur in 2003’
Less confident

Low probability
 Pragmatic Theology

Ethics
Sim Arg:
implications

Epistemology Metaphysics
Scepticism: traditional response
‘Of course
this life is COMBAT!
real!’

establish that
concern is
unwarranted
 Sim Era Scepticism: menace of the
virtual = very real
Assume: reality is largely as
our experience suggests
(physical law, history, etc.)

significant probability Take a few VR-trips:

that your life = virtual threat will feel real
…
 Objection:

Sim-scepticism
= self-undermining

Sim threat
= not real
 Recall the basic
line of reasoning

And see how it

defeats itself …
 My life is
non-virtual

Simulation My world has

Argument properties F, G ..

High odds
that I am
living in a
simulation
 My life is
non-virtual

Simulation My world has

Argument properties F, G

High odds
that I am
?
living in a
simulation
 Steps to a vicious, epistemically
unstable, loop:
1. Certain beliefs about the character of the
world lead you to believe that it is likely that
you are living in a simulation.
2. But: the latter belief undermines the former
beliefs
 If you believe you inhabit a sim, why believe
your experience is a reliable guide to how things
really are?
 Your grounds for assigning a high probability to
the sim hypothesis are no more
Loop concluded and relaunched …
3. So you no longer have reason to believe
you are living in a simulation.
4. You conclude: things are much as they
seem.
5. But: if things are much as they seem,
there is a good chance that you are living
in a simulation ….
6. And the loop repeats ….
One response: entrenchment

Anyone who initially assigns

high probability to sim
hypothesis is always returned
to their initial state

So: rejecting the Sim Arg and

‘returning to reality’ is
is not a stable option
 A problematic
(& puzzling) symmetry

Rejecting Sim Arg Accepting Sim Arg

= not a stable option = not a stable option
 Question:

Rejecting Sim Arg Accepting Sim Arg

= not a stable option = not a stable option

Can the Sim Arg

leave one in an
epistemically stable
situation?
Maybe…
A suspect equation….

Simulation Misrepresentation

Traditional Naturalistic
demon simulation
hypothesis hypotheses
 Simulation Realism: variants
 Full: simulation is perfect duplication of
actual world
 Partial: simulation is accurate in some
respects
 physics
 biology
 history
 personalities
 S-realism:
 Simulations with high S-realism resemble the
actual world in ways relevant to the assessment
of the Simulation Hypothesis (i.e. that there are
high odds that your life is virtual)
 laws of nature, technological possibilities, social
trends, etc.

 Modest claim: at least 75% of current fictions

(films, novels, computer games) have high S-
realism
 Modest prediction: at least 50% of future fictions
will have high S-realism
 My world is broadly as 80% chance
Sim
it seems + low odds I am living in a
that my life is virtual Arg simulation

My world is broadly as it
Simulations with
seems + good chance
high S-realism= 50%
that my life is a simulation

40% chance
I am living in a
simulation

Steps to an epistemically stable situation

(a) the world is broadly as I believe it to be
(physical laws, history, technological trends)

(b) the probability that I am living in a simulation is

quite high

Claim:

These two beliefs are consistent, provided that

under (a) you believe that most future
simulations are likely to supply a broadly
accurate picture of reality
Moving swiftly on …
Theology: Problem of Evil

distribution of ‘pointless’
suffering

real

virtual worlds / lives

most evil = directly due to humankind

 Metaphysics: varieties of VR
H-sims v S-sims

Autonomous v. Programmed
Active v Passive actions

Others are real (active)

Communal v. Individual or merely apparent.

Original v Replacement Your own psychology,

Psychology or another one
Active – Individual – Original Psy
Active – Individual – Replacement Psy
Active – Communal – Original Psy
Active – Communal – Replacement Psy
H or S
Passive – Individual – Original Psy
Passive – Individual – Replacement Psy
Passive – Communal – Original Psy
Passive – Communal – Replacement Psy
16 modes

‘The Matrix’ = active, communal, original ?

 Simulation Scenarios as
Metaphysical Hypotheses, not
Sceptical Hypotheses (Chalmers)

 If we were simulants, most of our beliefs

about our world would still be true
 But: our world would have a different
nature than we commonly believe
 e.g. physical things are constituted by
computational processes
 Some plausibility for COMMUNAL sims
 Pragmatic Issues:
Should I be
Should I act
depressed?
differently?

My life is unusually
My life is boring: interesting: does
does this reduce this increase
the odds? the odds?
The price of fame: high sim odds
But my life is too dull …
‘The Sims’ = bestselling computer
game for the past three years

No life is too dull!

 Simulation Ethics

Creation Issues Maintenance Issues

Question: might ethical scruples

diminish the menace posed by the
Simulation Argument?
 Deception Objection
Sim subjects are Does the wrong
being deceived outweigh the gift
about their real of existence?
condition. It’s wrong
to deceive in this
way.

H-sims, VR-vacations:
deception = temporary
& self-imposed!
Self-Interest Objection
Future generations
will restrict sims to
secure their own
reality
Realization: innocence
cannot be recaptured
Can’t guarantee
policy will be continued
Opposing forces: escapism,
entertainment industry
implications
for us …
 Sim innocence: can’t be regained,
but can be simulated
popularity
(no. of
simulations/
visits)

2003
innocence sim age 100,000 AD

transition
 Concluding speculations: Might We Be In
a Minority?

don’t

take sim
us threat
seriously

sum total of intelligent

conscious beings
A further (final?) Copernican shift

real

virtual

sum total of conscious lives