No we are not in a computer simulation - it is an idea philosophers have fun with but few even took seriously until recently but it doesn’t make sense especially ethically
The simulation theory is not a new idea just had Elon Musk and Neil Degrasse Tyson popularize what is a far fetched idea of interest in philosophical discussions but not plausible.
It's a bit like the modern popularity of solipsism [the idea that I am the only real mind who exists]. Youtube “experts” often present this as if it was a serious philosophical view
AFAIK no philosopher has ever been a solipsist. No philospher has ever seriously proposed that he or she (the philosopher) is the only real mind that exists. Philosophers use this idea rather as an interesting philosophical straw man to test philosophical arguments against.
The simulation theory is rather similar. It is interesting as a philosophical idea but not a practical possibility.
I did a couple of debunks that may help
1. The physics is ridiculously complicated for a simulation - We can simulate the ground states of simple molecules in quantum mechanics but large complex molecules are beyond us. It doesn't make sense to make a simulation so complicated.
2. The ethics of it is appalling if it is a simulation which simulates so much suffering. An advanced civilization with the technology to make a simulation - if it is possible at all, should have advanced ethics (we are going that way ourselves, more recognition of human rights)
The next two, [3. and 4. are for the idea of a simulation where we are computer characters - not for the Matrix type immersive VR]
3. Ability to understand truth can't be scripted yet, and there are reasons to suppose there can never be any computer script that truly understands such things as whether something is a school bus, say - can be programmed to say it and be right most of the time, but we may never have computer code able to truly understand anything.
4. Computer game characters, and Sophia, are just animatronics with chatscripts and we are clearly not scripted
For Matrix ideas,
5. If you have such awesome technology - why use it to simulate a world with so much suffering - and why not use it to solve your problems, whatever they are, rather than to try to hide them? It is great fun as a movie but it isn't very logical as with many movie ideas if you look at them closely - they work because you get caught up in the action and excitement and don't inspect the premises closely.
This is my second debunk:
I expand on this in my answer to: “Is there any conceivable way to test whether or not we are in a computer simulation?”
I will go on to look at Nick Bostrom’s argument but first, I’ll talk about derealism. This is a feeling “as if” you are in a simulation that may lead people to think they have first-hand experience of being simulated. No. It’s nothing to do with that. It has other causes.
DEPERSONALIZATION OR DEREALISM
If you have a feeling that you aren't real or nothing is real, you could be experiencing depersonalization or derealization - can happen if you get a lot of stress or trauma.
QUOTE Derealization is a mental state where you feel detached from your surroundings. People and objects around you may seem unreal. Even so, you're aware that this altered state isn't normal.
More than half of all people may have this disconnection from reality once in their lifetime. But about 2% of people experience it often enough for it to become a type of dissociative disorder.
Derealization is similar but distinct from depersonalization. The latter involves a feeling of detachment not from your environment, but from your own body, thoughts, or feelings. It's as if you're watching what's happening to yourself as an outsider.
Symptoms
Derealization usually happens in episodes, which means symptoms come and go. During an episode, you might feel as if:
* You are in a dream or fog.
A see-through wall or veil is separating you from your surroundings.
The world appears lifeless, muted, or fake.
Objects or people look wrong -- blurry, unnaturally sharp, too big, or too small.
Sounds are distorted, too loud, or too soft.
Time seems to speed up, slow down, or stand still.
Episodes can end in a few minutes or stretch for months at a time. But even as you feel like you're going crazy, you always recognize that something is off. This is a key difference from psychotic disorders, where you can't distinguish what's real and what's imaginary.
Causes
Derealization sometimes can be a symptom of a medical condition. Other times, it can happen on its own, often in reaction to severe trauma or stress.
...
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-derealization-overview
WHAT IF THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF A SIMULATION IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE - MAYBE THIS WORLD IS EASY TO SIMULATE FOR THEM? WELL - IF SO IT COULD BE A WORLD OF MAGIC OR ANGELS OR CREATOR GODS, THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE COMPUTERS AT ALL
Then what if the physics of the world outside a simulation is different from ours and permits them to simulate conscious beings like us?
That's possible. But then why would that world even have computers? Why not e.g. a world that is run on magic, without laws of physics, pure thought?
Or why not angels or deities?
Once you talk about the possibility that this world and everything in it could be created by some other beings that are not restricted to physics as we know it, it is really in the realms of theology or mysticism or the supernatural.
So it's like asking if there is a creator God or creator deities, and if so why did they create us and what are their intentions?
THEN THE MAIN ARGUMENT IS THE ETHICAL ONE AS IT ALWAYS HAS FOR PHILOSOPHERS AND THEOLOGIANS DISCUSSING THE POTENTIAL FOR CREATORS OR DEITIES - WE HAVE ETHICS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AND MANY ASPIRE TO, WHICH SUGGESTS THE CREATORS OF OUR WORLD ALSO HAVE ETHICAL VALUES LIKE THAT - OR IF NOT - THEY WOULD LEARN THOSE VALUES FROM WORLDS LIKE OURS - SO WHY CREATE WORLDS LIKE THIS WITH SO MUCH SUFFERING
So then the main thing left is the ethical argument, why would a creator create a world with so much suffering when with small changes they could make it e.g. so humans don't have an appendix, simple example. Why create humans with an appendix?
But generally why create a world with suffering at all/
Also, why create a world where we are unaware the creators exist and can't talk to them or raise any issues we have with their creation with them?
Of course religious people have the same questions and they are often unresolved, they may say that at some point we will understand.
It's not impossible that there are creators of this world or it has a creator with capabilities that are well beyond anything we can understand. But in that case this isn't a simulation. It's just a creation.
WE ARE REAL LIVING BEINGS ANYWAY WHETHER THIS IS NATURAL OR CREATED
And of course we are real living beings as we are anyway no matter what you call it. And then it is an ethical issue why creators or a creator would create such a world. Also about their responsibilities to us after creating it.
I don't think the analogy with computers really helps at that point. Because at that point there is no reason to suppose there is anything resembling computers in a world so different we can't assume anything about it.
POSITION SIMILAR TO DESCARTES WITH HIS “I THINK THEREFORE I AM”
Then at that point we are rather in a similar situation to Descrates.
He asks, suppose there is a demon controls everything I see. Not to torment, it's just to deceive and Descartes didn't think there really is such a demon. But in his Meditation he wanted to start his philosophy on a secure foundation. So he wanted to strip away everything that he wasn't totally certain about and then on the basis of what he was certain, to build up his philosophy.
So - to help him to do that he added the philosophical fiction of an evil genius - not evil in the sense of wanting to torment him, just wanting to deceive him, all its effort into deceiving his senses. As for the motive he didn't care, it wasn't important to his argument.
Then on the basis of that then he proceeds to find out what it is that he knows for sure That is where his "I think therefore I am" comes in. On the basis of that he then builds up his entire philosophical understanding of everything.
This is a good introduction to it by a philosopher.
DESCARTS ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF A SUPREMELY GOOD GOD
So then Descartes comes up with his argument for the existence of a supremely good God.
He actually has more than one argument but I’ll focus on one of them.
This is his argument in its essence:
1. I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
2. Necessary existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.
I.e. it would hardly be a supremely perfect being if it doesn't exist as not existing is an imperfection.
Of course you can find many issues with that argument.
But the second part of his argument is perhaps more relevant here:
"it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work."
Well whatever you think about it in Descartes' original context it works quite well in our modern context.
IF WE ARE CREATED, WHOEVER OR WHATEVER CREATED US MUST UNDERSTAND COMPASSION - FROM THE ETHICS INSIDE THEIR CREATION IF NOWHERE ELSE
At this point I think it's wrong to call it a simulation. Because with this variation it's not a simulation of anything. It is a creation.
If we were indeed a creation it is clear that whoever or whatever created us understands compassion, love, kindness wisdom. If they didn't already they would find out pretty soon as soon as they studied us and got those teachings from our great teachers.
So then wouldn't such creatures so advanced in civilization as to be able to create a world like this also be advanced in their ethics too?
THEY CAN CREATE A CIVILIZATION THAT ASPIRES TO ETHICS, WISDOM AND KINDNESS
We see that they can create a civilization that aspires to ethics and to wisdom and kindness. I think it is fair to say nearly all humans at some level want to be wise and want to be understanding and kind and compassionate. Even if they want many other things too that at times seem to them to be incompatible with those qualities and sometimes seem to win out.
As the Dalai Lama put it:
Dalai Lama : "love and compassion predominate in the world. And this is why unpleasant events are news, compassionate activities are so much part of daily life that they are taken for granted and, therefore, largely ignored.."
https://www.dalailama.com/messages/compassion-and-human-values/compassion
It's the same in our personal lives.
If 100 people are kind to us in the day and one person says something unkind then the one unkind thing may spoil our day, we dwell on it and magnify it and don't notice all the kindness we are surrounded by.
But most of us are surrounded by kindness all our life from when we are babies, with some nasty unkind things mixed in but vast amounts of kindness.
So then wouldn't that be something they aspire to as well, and presumably in a billions of years old advanced civilization (whatever time means in their civilization or world or whatever you call it) then surely they also would be supremely wise and kind and compassionate too.
I think there is space here for a variation on Descartes argument applied to the simulation theory for any who get this far and think we actually might be some kind of a creation by beings with understanding and capabilities well beyond us.
If we were such a creator they created a world where we value ethics and kindness and we have great teachers that talk about those things with us.
POSSIBILITIES THAT NICK BOSTROM LEAVES OUT
This is how Nick Bostrom puts it in his paper:
QUOTE
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.
(Bostrom, 2003, Are you living in a computer simulation)
So, Nick Bostrom says there are three possibilities
That we go extinct before we can make an ancestor simulation
that nobody is ever wealthy enough to run ancestor simulations
That we are in an ancestor simulation of our future civilization.
There are numerous other possibilities Nick Bostrom leaves out.
4. That it is not possible to simulate what we do in a computer program - understanding truth may be non computable.
5. That civilisations evolve in the direction of becoming more not less ethical and they wouldn't do it because it is highly unethical.
6. Why would future generations do ancestor simuations? Why simulate the past rather than
their present?
their future?
imaginary worlds such as worlds based on magic?
Paradise lands?
Why not simulate trillions of paradises rather than be focused on simulating their own past? What is the point in it? And again why all the suffering?
Especially to have nearly all their simulations of the past? That makes little sense, if it is possible.
Clearly Nick Bostrom himself has an enormous academic interest in the past and would want to simulate it if he could. But why would nearly everyone in nearly all future civilizations have this huge obsession with the past?
I mean - if you were told you can simulate anything, would you want to simulate the time of the Lascaux cave paintings?
6. Anyway the whole argument is a strange one and many philosophers would say arguments like this are not valid. We are not average people. All of us are unique.
E.g. I live on an island in the Scotland. Both my parents were missionaries. I am British. The country with most inhabitants is China. Why aren't I Chinese? Britian is a small country compared to the global population. And so on.
Many would say the answer to all that is that the philosophical argument isn't a valid one.
The idea that we are somehow an average person is a very strange argument. It's philosophically very weak. It reads like a variation on what's called the "doomsday argument" where a philosopher may look at how many people are alive today and try to deduce from that that we have to be about halfway through all the people who have ever lived. It is a bit of a weird argument as how can we be alive now as it would seem if this argument was valid that the people who lived tens of thousands of years ago couldn't have existed because they weren't "average people".
I don't think many philosophers are convinced by it but there is some philosophical discussion.
Nick Bostrom's argument seems to me like one of those, the sort of arguments philosophers can get caught up with but not really of real world relevance.
Debunked: The Doomsday argument
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Debunked-The-Doomsday-argument
So the reasoning is not convincing at all. You can come up with many other possibilities than his three possibilities that he claims we have to decide between.
So, no, we are not in computer simulation or animation.
Everything is 100% real and will not disappear.
You don’t have to be worry and can be calm and enjoy life and sleep peacefully.
You have nothing to worry about here and can be calm and enjoy life and sleep peacefully
It will not happen, it's beyond impossible / incredible. You don't have anything to worry about and cna be calm and enjoy life and sleep peacefully. Like all the thousands of previous generations of humans.
And the millions of previous generations of our ancestors of proto hominids and earlier forms of life.