The Simulation Argument

[Techne]

Found this to be interesting.
The Simulation Argument (SA).
Paper by Nick Bostrom:
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html)
Abstract
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

The conclusion sounds fun.
Conclusion:
A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

Emphasis mine.

Also, a nice blog entry about the SA.
The dark side of the Simulation Argument (http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/08/dark-side-of-simulation-argument.html)

Something for laughs. (http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/998.html)


The Simulation Argument FAQ (http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html)

Damned if it is true, damned if it is not :). Enjoy.

[Search & Destroy]

I would also like to know if anyone can relate this to Hinduism.

[Techne]

A student MA thesis
I, Sim - an Exploration of the Simulation Argument (http://www.simulation-argument.com/hammarstrom.pdf)

Nick Bostrom argues that we have reason to believe that we are currently living inside a complex computer simulation of the world. This paper explores this simulation argument, to see if it’s really plausible to assume that we live out our lives in a computer. What does it really mean to be living in a simulation? Will philosophy of mind allow these simulated people to be genuinely conscious, as you and I are? If they are conscious, what are their mental lives like? Do their mental states have causal powers? Could we have any empirical reasons to believe that our world is real rather than simulated? Relative to me, could it ever be true that I am living in a simulation, or is the discussion meaningless? The questions are many, and the answers might seem elusive.

The conclusion reached in this paper is that the argument is, at our current stage of technological development, in principle irrefutable. It all depends on whether or not consciousness can emerge from advanced computer simulations of the human brain, and the answer to this question is, unfortunately, out of our current reach.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If we are in a computer simulation, we have no way of knowing there is such a thing as a human brain outside of it. We can't know what is possible or not.
We may be extremely different from the beings who set up this simulation.
There may be no such thing as oxygen or carbon or gravity. Their "Earth" may be flat.
We may never find out if this is a simulation because they won't allow it.
1 of them may be demonstrating this artificial world to another & is told it's unrealistic or goofy or as primitive to them as our current ability to create a computer simulation. Our universe may be a "6th grader's" school project.

[swarm]

The Simulation Argument (SA).

Ah, I have a soft spot for this one as faq point 13 was put up in support of a disagreement I had with a fellow some years ago. A slight touch on simulated fame.

While I wouldn't suggest spamming the poor fellow, he does respond to serious queries, or at least did some years ago. :)

[swarm]

You should consider that "you" and your view of the world are a neural simulation run in the brain. It is usually tightly coupled to the reality around you but that coupling isn't perfect, resulting it various optical, and other sensory, illusions for example.

Certain things such as sensory deprivation can disrupt the simulation resulting in general whackiness.

Also during your down time for system maintenance, you can run non coupled simulations (dreams) for playing games and what not.