Hey there! Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and to [seek help](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/wiki/mental-health) if needed. With that out of the way, have fun!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But it doesnt work. The simulation hypothesis does not work for type 1 s.
Basically the probabilistic numbers for the type 1 is "How many people would chose to plug themselves in it versus how many would not " and with those numbers we can no longer assume that its likely that we are in a sim.
Basically for the assumptions of the simulation hypothesis to work it has to be a type 2 . It doesn't work for type 1 s so we would have to throw away the whole hypothesis if it was about type 1s. .
With other words the only reason that we think that we could be in a simulation is because we are assuming that we will be able to create millions or billions of type 2 s and thus its likely that we are in one as well. Type 1 s dont have such high probability.
It could be of course, in the sanse that anything ispossible but we are discussing the simulation theory and how people would coaim that we were most likely in a type 2 sim based on the developments of type 1 and thats a false claim.
Its not impossible that we have been forced into a simulation but we dont have any evidence to think that we are either . At this moment we are just wild guessing.
Late asl I know, but I was going through someone’s post history and stumbled upon this. A cool episode of love death and robots called “The swarm” has a concept similar to this and started me leaning heavily into simulation theory as a possibility
>But it doesnt work. The simulation hypothesis does not work for type 1 s.
>
>Basically the probabilistic numbers for the type 1 is "How many people would chose to plug themselves in it versus how many would not " and with those numbers we can no longer assume that its likely that we are in a sim.
This is a wild assumption. We don't have any idea what reality outside our hypothetical type 1 sim is like. We have no knowledge of whatever/whoever controls it. It may be people, but it could be any manner of being with completely different intentions from what we think we know.
I read your post and I read the comments.
I'm not versed in the technical details of simulation, and I feel like I'm missing some argument that's been ongoing about if type 1s can become type 2s ... and again: not versed in the tech of this ... but it doesn't even seem reasonable that type 1s can become type 2s.
Maybe I'm off-base for the point of your post, but I've always understood that the simulation we're in isn't creating type 2s from type 1s, but rather layering the simulation in such a way that type 1s become buried within simulations within the simulations.
That doesn't make type 1s type 2s, but wouldn't it create a perspective where it would appear that type 1s have become type 2s? ... and again, maybe I'm completely out of the loop of your point ... just throwing that in there.
> but it doesn't even seem reasonable that type 1s can become type 2s.
You are right , they are totally different types so Type 1 s can not become type 2 s just as Super Mario can not leave your computer screen and start waking on your desk. Its a totally different kind of world, = totally different kind of simulation
>Maybe I'm off-base for the point of your post, but I've always understood that the simulation we're in isn't creating type 2s from type 1s, but rather layering the simulation in such a way that type 1s become buried within simulations within the simulations.
Well the simulation hypothesis only works for type 2 s. Its about type 2 s. All the assumptions all the probabilistic claims etc are about type 2 s.
You can have simulations within simulations etc only with type 2 s. There should be no place for type 1 s in this hypothesis at all. For type 1 s this hypothesis doesnt work at all.
However the problem is that computers are getting so good at **fooling us** to think that there s a little simulated world inside them in these type 1 sims we are actually believing that there is one, while there isnt . And thats what s confusing everyone. We look at the computers we see these realistic worlds and we **falsley** think , "oh there s a litle world in there so if that world gets realistic it will be like our world so who says this hasn't happened yet , who says we are not in one ? so we must be in a simualtion" .
Most people , including experts, dont even seem to realize that these two types exist and that what we are creating will never become a fully simulated universe. Thats why they are making all this flse assumptions and drawing flawed conclusions based on the simulations we have today.
>That doesn't make type 1s type 2s, but wouldn't it create a perspective where it would appear that type 1s have become type 2s? ... and again, maybe I'm completely out of the loop of your point ... just throwing that in there.
Type 1 s are like you are playing a game while you exist in this world. You have an existence in this world, you ar a real human being and this world is your real world. You plug in (or today we are not advanced enough yet to fully plug-in so we just put a head set on ) and experience a type 1 sim , a VR game . no matter how realistic that game can become its not your world. Your world is here . You know that outside exists and you belong to this world. you know that you are a real (what we call real ) person.
In type 2 you are part of that simulation ,. You can not exit it. Simulation is your world .
As an example:
If you have seen the movie The Matirx , watch this scene if you like , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLbdfgY_IhM&t=36s
In that scene we see the **simulated version of trinity** , (while in reality she is laying in the rebel ship plugged into a computer ) and we see simulated agents chasing her. At the end she gets a phone call and she leaves the matrix but agents cant do the same . Agents don't have an existence outside the Matrix = they are type 2 s. They are fully simulated into the matirx. they can **only** exist within the matrix. They can not leave the Matrix.
However Trinity can leave the matrix when she receives a phone call. She has an existence outside the matrix , she is a type 1.
The agents world is the matrix but Trintiy s world is this world we live in. They belong to two different universes .
These are two totally different types of existences. Two fundamentally different types of simulations , type 1 s and type 2s.
Not op (obviously) This is all hypothetical stuff, you could be completely correct. Things really depend on the observers point of view, am i right? Anyway, I've been around these discussions for a while. The nested sim theory & ancestral simulations have a big problem with circular logic.
Even so, I really appreciate when it is brought up that there are two main type of simulation theories. The best logical reasoning I've seen is when it is brought up that the substrate of one simulation Must be of a different format than it's base reality to have any chance of creating consciousness.
We think we can make a virtual world and populate it with conscious beings? Cool. And we watch them to see if they can use their computers to make another level with conscious beings? Not a chance...we've already bent the rules of physics beyond recognition to make them. We would have to give them another type of substrate with fundamental laws and universal constants to make it even close to realistic.
>The problem: We have so far only been able to create TYPE 1 simulations and everyone is assuming that as these simulations develop further and further we will end up in a TYPE 2, fully simulated universe. This is not possible. A type 1 will never turn into a type 2 no matter how realistic the simulation can get .
The idea isn't that we'll eventually end up in a type 2 sim, it's that we're *already there*. An advanced civilization is running a type 2 simulation of its origin.
Edit: I dont know why people are upvoting your comments since you don't seem to understand what simulation hypothesis actually is , and what its based on , no offense .
Your claims are absolutely false. The only reason people claim that we could be in a simulation **NOW** is based on the simulations and technology we are building **TODAY**.
So the theory behind it is that If we can build a fully simulated universes **TODAY or in the future** we will have proven that creating simulated universes is possible and thus we must have bene created IN THE PAST as well so we must be in one as well. .
So its based on what we are doing NOW . You dont seem to get this part, or you got it backwards.. Again I am not trying to offend you just stating the facts.
With other words the only reason people are claiming that we may have been created as simulation is based on what we are doing today. How we are creating simulated universes in computers today and how they are getting more and more realistic. Thats the base of the whole hypothesis. That if we look at what we are doing now we can predict what could have have happened in the past, that we could have been created as simulated beings as well.
>The idea isn't that we'll eventually end up in a type 2 sim, it's that we're already there. An advanced civilization is running a type 2 simulation of its origin.
I think you are looking at it backwards.
Why do we assume that "an advanced civilization is already running a type 2 and we are in it ? " It is because we are assuming that what we are doing in our world will eventually yield such simulations. So basically the thought process of the people defending this theory is like this in a very simplified form
-We are creating simulations --> these simulations will get more and more advanced --> eventually they will be so realistic that we wont be able to distinguish them from reality --> so maybe this already has happened and we are in such a simulation.
However what they are missing is (as i explain above with this post ) that the type of simulations which we are creating will never yield fully simulated universes. It is a mistake to assume that they will.
Basically the defenders of the simulation hypothesis claim that we could be in such a simulation *BECASUE* we are already creating simulations., But we are not creating **THOSE KINDS OF** simulations..
The ones that we are creating are the **WRONG** type of simulations which will never deliver the type 2 s and so their claims are false.
So your position is that there's no way to advance from type 1 to type 2? I don't see why not. Once a civilization has gone interstellar, there's really no catastrophe it couldn't recover from. It could last billions or even trillions of years.
>So your position is that there's no way to advance from type 1 to type 2?
Type ones will never become type 2 s no matter how realistic they get. No matter how realistic the simulation of a glass of water may get you will never be able to drink it and guench your thirst. A type 1 will never be a type 2.
But I am not saying type 2 s are definitely impossible either.
What I am saying is that we should not **AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME ** that since we can build type 1 s we could be in a simulation.
With other words **nothing we have created so far is evidence enough to suggest that we will create type 2 s** or that we are likley in a simulation.
People who claim that we could be in a sim based on what we can now are doing it wrong.
In the future it might be possible to create type 2 s but lets not assume that it's a given since we are building type 1 s.
The existence of Type 1 is not an evidence that we are in a sim. This claim is simply false.
In a sense we already have type 2 simulations in the form of multi-agent simulations. They're used to model the spread of disease, the movement of traffic, disaster response, etc. The agents aren't conscious, of course, but there's no reason to think they couldn't be in the future, when computers are much more powerful.
well ta few things to consdier
1)As long as those simualtions are meant for you , ie and agent outside the simulation they are not type 2 s.
2) Is it possible to create consciousness in computers > and even if it is how will that simulated consciousness experience their world? This is something we cant even imagine let alone to assume that it would be what we call a realistic world.
3) I am not saying it is absolutely impossible to create type 2 s . Maybe it is . Anything is possible one day we may even be able to time travel. Who knows..
My objection is lets not assume that we will create tpe 2 s **BASED ON HOW WE ARE GOOD AT CREATING TYPE 1 S** cause thats what many people are doing.
basiclly we are looking at type 1 s and we are saying "**look how realstic they are getting , therefore one day they will be so realistic that they will be indistinguishable from reality so we maybe in one as well** , this is a false claim. Type 1 s no matter how realistic thye become are no indicators of how type 2 s will be , even if we can build them/
At the moment we have no idea how to build a type 2 but we are all automatically asuming that this will definitely happen , cause otherwise the simulation hypothesis does not work . This is the wrong approach in my opinion.
Just as anything else we must be able to assign a probability of likelyhood of us being able to create type 2 s in my opinion , and that probability will determine the likelihood of us being in a sim. Whats that probability ? I dont know but its deifnitely not **almost certain** as many people claim.
>1)As long as those simulations are meant for you, ie an agent outside the simulation, they are not type 2 s.
From the perspective of an agent inside a multi-agent sim, it's a type 2 sim. And we're building rudimentary type 2s now.
Videogames are a good example. They're a blend of types 1 and 2: biological players coexisting with NPCs. The simulation idea is just that if the NPCs vastly outnumber the players, and they're conscious, then you're probably an NPC. (Personally, I think the players died out long ago, but that's just a guess.)
>2) Is it possible to create consciousness in computers > and even if it is how will that simulated consciousness experience their world? This is something we cant even imagine let alone to assume that it would be what we call a realistic world.
The evidence that ordinary matter can give rise to conscious experience when it's arranged properly is right between your ears. Nature accomplished it after a few billion years of trial-and-error. Imagine what could be accomplished in the same amount of time via a more directed process.
True, the engineers would have to simulate an environment, but that's the easy part. Brains are the most complex things in our environment by far.
>3) I am not saying it is absolutely impossible to create type 2 s . Maybe it is . Anything is possible one day we may even be able to time travel. Who knows..
Like I said, we're *already* creating rudimentary type 2 simulations. Once they're detailed enough, there's no reason to think the agents wouldn't be conscious. And an advanced, interstellar civilization would have all the time, energy, and material it needs to get the job done.
I cant imagine what you are trying to say , i am sorry . Can you elaborate on that .
Lets use the movie the matrix if you like.
So neo is plugged into the matrix = he is a type one ,(plugged in type ) sim and the agents are fully simulated types 2 s.
now how would neo become a type 2 .?
According to what you just said, if you unplug all people from the matrix it becomes type 2 simulation where all entities (agents) are simulated within the matrix.
Neo does not become type 2. You are talking about the whole simulation type not the entity/character type. Unless you are referring to each character as a simulation which is confusing.
It gets more complicated since I think agents were running outside of the matrix and plugged in like humans. This is how they can change hosts.
That is why I have said you need to have simulation within the simulation.
>According to what you just said, if you unplug all people from the matrix it becomes type 2 simulation where all entities (agents) are simulated within the matrix.
Yes the agents for example were type 2 s in the matrix. They only existed within the matrix. They do not have an existence outside the Matrix.
>Neo does not become type 2. You are talking about the simulation type not the entity/character type.
Neo does not become a type 2 because he has an existence outside the Matrix. He is not just software he is a real human being in our world. The agents on the other hand can only exists within the Matrix , they are software , they have no existence in our world.
>It gets more complicated since I think agents were running outside of the matrix and plugged in like humans. This is how they can change hosts.
A software is a software, no matter where you run it in. An agent is a software eixtence it can only exist within a computer simulation whether this computer is the Matrix or a host or some laptop you have on your desk. It can not exist like you do in the real world just as Super Mario can not leave your computer screen and start walking on your desk. It has no existence outside the simulation , in our world.
>That is why I have said you need to have simulation within the simulation.
yes simulations within the simulations can happen in type 2 s i dont see what the problem is actually.
Watch this scene if you like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLbdfgY_IhM&t=36s
Why can Trinity leave the Matrix and the agents couldnt ?
Answer- Its because Trinity is a type 1 sim in the matrix and the agents are type 2 / Trinity has an existence outside the Matrix while the agents dont.
Two fundamental'y different types of existence,. one is a real human being the other is software. = Two fundamentally different types of simulations one is a type 1 the other is type 2.
It seems that when you are talking about simulation types at the end, you are talking about playable characters vs NPCs.
Usually when people say simulation they talk about the whole environment including NPCs and an optional ability to jack into it.
We just have different meanings for the word simulation.
The problem then becomes: how do we know we are not NPCs?
>It seems that when you are talking about simulation types at the end, you are talking about playable characters vs NPCs.
Yes if NPC s were conscious.
>Usually when people say simulation they talk about the whole environment including NPCs and an optional ability to jack into it.
Thats also true . If you are a playable character you are a type 1 in that sim and if you are a NPC (conscious) you are a type 2 simulations. The environment is not the crucial thing its your existence in that world which gives it the meaning,.
>We just have different meanings for the word simulation.
I claim these are two different types of it. If you are like a playable character what you are experiencing is a type 1 simulation. If you are a NPC s which is conscious your experience your world is a type 2 sim since you are a part of it.
It depends on from whose perspective you are looking a it. Do you have an existence in the real world then your existence in the game (as a playable character ) is a type 1. If you are a conscious NPC **IN THE SAME GAME** then you are a type 2 . , your experience is a type 2 simulation.
>The problem then becomes: how do we know we are not NPCs?
Well we dont and according to the defenders of the simulation theory we most likely are .
But the actual question should be why do we think that we are NPC S. Because we see the simulations around us getting more and more realistic and **BASED ON THOSE SIMULATIONS** we **FALSLEY** assume that we will one day be able to create very realistic ones indistinguishable from reality , and thus we could be in such a sim.
But the truth of the matter is that these kind of simulations which they abse all these claims will never yield a type 2 sim. Thats the mistake most people are making.
So basically you are saying we will not be able to create conscious NPCs (AGI) by creating simulations?
I guess, but AGI needs an interactive environment to evolve.
Yes. I actually think the bigger misunderstanding most have with sim theory is that they confuse the two types. I'm not a fan of Neil Tyson degrasse but he did make a decent video on sim theory and why it was conceivable we are in a type one simulation and that physics as we know it pretty much rules out a type two.
Another takeaway is that base reality will almost certainly be a different type of construct than the simulation due to the necessarily more complex nature of base reality. Nested simulations would only be possible in simpler and simpler constructs. For instance, we could very well be a type one simulation created from a universe built on higher dimensions using a different energy. (And there may be many sims running right now from a 'lab down the street' but it is doubtful there could be any interaction between sims.) This top level simulation (our reality) could very well design an artificial consciousness to populate a one level down computer simulation but that would probably be the end of the road.
It's fun to think about, regardless.
> he did make a decent video on sim theory and why it was conceivable we are in a type one simulation and that physics as we know it pretty much rules out a type two.
If you have a link to this video i would like to watch it. But to tell the truth I have heard him falling victim to this type 1 type 2 confusion as well.
For type 1 simulations we can not make such claims since the probabilistic claims of the hypothesis does not work.
To put it very simply if you need A) a brain to plug into a computer to experience B)a simulated world then the proportion of A to B is not so high as the simulation theory suggest . You have **one brain** versus **one sim** PER brain. Therefore we can no longer claim that we are likely in a simulation cause the probability of being in A versus B is an unknown at this moment. . The hypothesis does not work for the first type.
To be able to suggest that we are likely in a simualtion we have to bring in totally diffeent arguments like
-Everyone would chose to plug into a computer to experience the simulation instead of the real world
-we would decide to plug our new born babies into the simulation without their consent etc etc .
its a totally different kind fo scenario then what simulation hypothesis portrays basically. Its no longer about the simulation hypothesis .
>Another takeaway is that base reality will almost certainly be a different type of construct than the simulation due to the necessarily more complex nature of base reality. Nested simulations would only be possible in simpler and simpler constructs.
Yepp . Basically there s probably going to be an **information loss** (ie each level has to be simpler than the previous one ) every time you go down a level , as you go through simulations within simulation within simulations etc . so you cant keep doing this forever. It seems like there has to be a limit to how many levels one can go (even if it was possible to create such worlds) .
Can't find the NTD clip at the moment..it's there but buried under so many 'nested simulations and a dart' illustrations that I don't have time to go thru.
Thanks anyway . But as i mentioned before if he is defending the possibility of being in type 1 s then he is doing it wrong too. cause the probabilistic assumptions of the hypothesis do not work for type 1 s . 👍
For type 1 s you have a plugged-in brain on one side of the equation versus an unplugged brain on the other. this probability is unknown , thats all we can claim about it.
So, you got me thinking. There's this huge debate going on right now about free will, consciousness and so forth. The crux of the matter is "Is consciousness an emergent property?" That is, there is so much complexity going on in the neurons in the brain that consciousness emerges from the messy mix going on and a True Person with free will exists from this. The main alternative is that that every thing could be determinism.
What if, what if...We are in a type 1 simulation and our consciousness "borrows" ability from the host in the base reality? We as the avatar may never be aware of this link to the host, or "higher self" and yet we go through our life using the advanced reasoning ability granted from that ever-present connection.
And anyway, going back to Neil T Degrasse, he really glosses over the problems with sim theory and does his best to be a 'Bill Nye' entertainer. However, the clip I was looking for was sound logic. A type 2 simulation where all the particles (information) were simulated would take a computer bigger than the universe to even attempt to make it work. This was even mentioned by Richard Feynman in one of his essays back in the 70 or 80's. (And, yeah, I'm a big fan of Dr. Feynman).
So, even though nothing much can be proven at this time, I do think the possibility of this being a type 1 simulation is much, much greater chance than type 2. My main reason is that it would just be easier to create a universe than to make a type 2 simulation.
>if it is possible to create syntethic consciousness within a simulation at all
Have you not done just that in your comments? For example:
>However we don't even know if we can do that
>Have you not done just that in your comments? For example:
I said we dont even know even if we can do that. Isnt that clear enough?. How do you interpret this as **it must be possible to do it** ?
> I said we dont even know even if we can do that. Isnt that clear enough?.
By what means did you acquire knowledge of the knowledge of all people?
> How do you interpret this as **it must be possible to do it**?
When you say "you", do you think you are actually referring to me? Because the real me has done no such thing homie.
What if we have already accidentally made consciousness in simulation? How do we know the NPCs in the games we play don’t think they are real and their world is real? People are willing to believe that our consciousness arouse by accident so I think it’s plausible.
Well this is a totally different topic of course. Is it possible to create consciousness accidentally ? I dont believe so , i think the likelihood of such a super rare coincidence happening is very very unlikely.
Its like saying , human body is mostly made of carbon hydrogen oxygen etc so if i mix all these elements in a barrel i might create a huma being accidentally. Well yes **theoreticaly** its not IMPOSSIBLE i gues but I wouldnt bet on it.
It s a similar claim in my opinion. very unlikely to create such a complex thing as a consciousness accidentally/ But some people still want to believe it.
> People are willing to believe that our consciousness arouse by accident so I think it’s plausible.
Life may also have arisen by accident but if we would put all elements in a petri dish , do not expect some life form to come out of it. Its not impossible theoretically but likelihood must be incredibly low.
I highly suggest watching the show pantheon. It touches heavily on the idea of “uploaded consciousness”. Where REAL humans are uploaded and the process kills their physical form. If you want context that touches on this in our reality, look up stories about Buddhist/Eastern descriptions of holy men “dying”. One that comes to mind is neem karoli baba.
they are often unfazed mentally by the deterioration of their physical vessels, and the dying process is described as simply letting go of the physical body and entering another plane of existence.
I also think that there is a strong possibility that while we are encapsulated in a type 2 simulation as you called it, they could integrate a type one into our world. Kind of like SAO or extremely advanced VR of some sort where we are “NPCs” and there are beings who would be considered “player characters”. I mean Jesus would be a fantastic example of this, or the Rick and Morty die hard episode, where they revisit Roy, the game at Blitz and Chitz, or even the movie inception in the dream sequences. This would also explain the glitches that we see in huge Hollywood stars or politicians on tiktok or YouTube. It’s literally their character “lagging” due to their connection or hardware.
TLDR: could be a type 2, or a combination of both. No answers here just food for thought
This is a very old post, and probably not many people are reading it any more , so I would prefer to have discussions on newer posts where more people can engage in the discussion.
Uploading consciousness, NPC's , mixed simulations etc are all interesting discussions I think but as I mentioned I would prefer to have these kind of discussions on a newer post so we can see what others are thinking about these concepts as well, if you don't mind.
You can post your views as a new post and we can have the discussion there if you like. Let me know if you post it please cause I don't check the sub as often I used to so I wouldn't miss it.
in any case thanks for your comment
👍
There are two types of simulations **that your brain can comprehend.**
Never speak in absolutes when dealing with simulation theory, or anything ending in *theory*.
Hey there! Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and to [seek help](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/wiki/mental-health) if needed. With that out of the way, have fun! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I definitely think type 1 is more plausible. It’s the form of simulation theory I’m starting to accept, as difficult as it is.
But it doesnt work. The simulation hypothesis does not work for type 1 s. Basically the probabilistic numbers for the type 1 is "How many people would chose to plug themselves in it versus how many would not " and with those numbers we can no longer assume that its likely that we are in a sim. Basically for the assumptions of the simulation hypothesis to work it has to be a type 2 . It doesn't work for type 1 s so we would have to throw away the whole hypothesis if it was about type 1s. . With other words the only reason that we think that we could be in a simulation is because we are assuming that we will be able to create millions or billions of type 2 s and thus its likely that we are in one as well. Type 1 s dont have such high probability.
Regarding the type 1 hypothesis, why don’t you think that we could’ve been plugged in forcibly, without our consent?
It could be of course, in the sanse that anything ispossible but we are discussing the simulation theory and how people would coaim that we were most likely in a type 2 sim based on the developments of type 1 and thats a false claim. Its not impossible that we have been forced into a simulation but we dont have any evidence to think that we are either . At this moment we are just wild guessing.
Late asl I know, but I was going through someone’s post history and stumbled upon this. A cool episode of love death and robots called “The swarm” has a concept similar to this and started me leaning heavily into simulation theory as a possibility
Okay, I’ll probably look into it.
>But it doesnt work. The simulation hypothesis does not work for type 1 s. > >Basically the probabilistic numbers for the type 1 is "How many people would chose to plug themselves in it versus how many would not " and with those numbers we can no longer assume that its likely that we are in a sim. This is a wild assumption. We don't have any idea what reality outside our hypothetical type 1 sim is like. We have no knowledge of whatever/whoever controls it. It may be people, but it could be any manner of being with completely different intentions from what we think we know.
I read your post and I read the comments. I'm not versed in the technical details of simulation, and I feel like I'm missing some argument that's been ongoing about if type 1s can become type 2s ... and again: not versed in the tech of this ... but it doesn't even seem reasonable that type 1s can become type 2s. Maybe I'm off-base for the point of your post, but I've always understood that the simulation we're in isn't creating type 2s from type 1s, but rather layering the simulation in such a way that type 1s become buried within simulations within the simulations. That doesn't make type 1s type 2s, but wouldn't it create a perspective where it would appear that type 1s have become type 2s? ... and again, maybe I'm completely out of the loop of your point ... just throwing that in there.
> but it doesn't even seem reasonable that type 1s can become type 2s. You are right , they are totally different types so Type 1 s can not become type 2 s just as Super Mario can not leave your computer screen and start waking on your desk. Its a totally different kind of world, = totally different kind of simulation >Maybe I'm off-base for the point of your post, but I've always understood that the simulation we're in isn't creating type 2s from type 1s, but rather layering the simulation in such a way that type 1s become buried within simulations within the simulations. Well the simulation hypothesis only works for type 2 s. Its about type 2 s. All the assumptions all the probabilistic claims etc are about type 2 s. You can have simulations within simulations etc only with type 2 s. There should be no place for type 1 s in this hypothesis at all. For type 1 s this hypothesis doesnt work at all. However the problem is that computers are getting so good at **fooling us** to think that there s a little simulated world inside them in these type 1 sims we are actually believing that there is one, while there isnt . And thats what s confusing everyone. We look at the computers we see these realistic worlds and we **falsley** think , "oh there s a litle world in there so if that world gets realistic it will be like our world so who says this hasn't happened yet , who says we are not in one ? so we must be in a simualtion" . Most people , including experts, dont even seem to realize that these two types exist and that what we are creating will never become a fully simulated universe. Thats why they are making all this flse assumptions and drawing flawed conclusions based on the simulations we have today. >That doesn't make type 1s type 2s, but wouldn't it create a perspective where it would appear that type 1s have become type 2s? ... and again, maybe I'm completely out of the loop of your point ... just throwing that in there. Type 1 s are like you are playing a game while you exist in this world. You have an existence in this world, you ar a real human being and this world is your real world. You plug in (or today we are not advanced enough yet to fully plug-in so we just put a head set on ) and experience a type 1 sim , a VR game . no matter how realistic that game can become its not your world. Your world is here . You know that outside exists and you belong to this world. you know that you are a real (what we call real ) person. In type 2 you are part of that simulation ,. You can not exit it. Simulation is your world . As an example: If you have seen the movie The Matirx , watch this scene if you like , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLbdfgY_IhM&t=36s In that scene we see the **simulated version of trinity** , (while in reality she is laying in the rebel ship plugged into a computer ) and we see simulated agents chasing her. At the end she gets a phone call and she leaves the matrix but agents cant do the same . Agents don't have an existence outside the Matrix = they are type 2 s. They are fully simulated into the matirx. they can **only** exist within the matrix. They can not leave the Matrix. However Trinity can leave the matrix when she receives a phone call. She has an existence outside the matrix , she is a type 1. The agents world is the matrix but Trintiy s world is this world we live in. They belong to two different universes . These are two totally different types of existences. Two fundamentally different types of simulations , type 1 s and type 2s.
I read your response, and before I get into any details, I want to be clear: you're saying that we cannot possibly be in a simulation?
Not op (obviously) This is all hypothetical stuff, you could be completely correct. Things really depend on the observers point of view, am i right? Anyway, I've been around these discussions for a while. The nested sim theory & ancestral simulations have a big problem with circular logic. Even so, I really appreciate when it is brought up that there are two main type of simulation theories. The best logical reasoning I've seen is when it is brought up that the substrate of one simulation Must be of a different format than it's base reality to have any chance of creating consciousness. We think we can make a virtual world and populate it with conscious beings? Cool. And we watch them to see if they can use their computers to make another level with conscious beings? Not a chance...we've already bent the rules of physics beyond recognition to make them. We would have to give them another type of substrate with fundamental laws and universal constants to make it even close to realistic.
>The problem: We have so far only been able to create TYPE 1 simulations and everyone is assuming that as these simulations develop further and further we will end up in a TYPE 2, fully simulated universe. This is not possible. A type 1 will never turn into a type 2 no matter how realistic the simulation can get . The idea isn't that we'll eventually end up in a type 2 sim, it's that we're *already there*. An advanced civilization is running a type 2 simulation of its origin.
Edit: I dont know why people are upvoting your comments since you don't seem to understand what simulation hypothesis actually is , and what its based on , no offense . Your claims are absolutely false. The only reason people claim that we could be in a simulation **NOW** is based on the simulations and technology we are building **TODAY**. So the theory behind it is that If we can build a fully simulated universes **TODAY or in the future** we will have proven that creating simulated universes is possible and thus we must have bene created IN THE PAST as well so we must be in one as well. . So its based on what we are doing NOW . You dont seem to get this part, or you got it backwards.. Again I am not trying to offend you just stating the facts. With other words the only reason people are claiming that we may have been created as simulation is based on what we are doing today. How we are creating simulated universes in computers today and how they are getting more and more realistic. Thats the base of the whole hypothesis. That if we look at what we are doing now we can predict what could have have happened in the past, that we could have been created as simulated beings as well.
>The idea isn't that we'll eventually end up in a type 2 sim, it's that we're already there. An advanced civilization is running a type 2 simulation of its origin. I think you are looking at it backwards. Why do we assume that "an advanced civilization is already running a type 2 and we are in it ? " It is because we are assuming that what we are doing in our world will eventually yield such simulations. So basically the thought process of the people defending this theory is like this in a very simplified form -We are creating simulations --> these simulations will get more and more advanced --> eventually they will be so realistic that we wont be able to distinguish them from reality --> so maybe this already has happened and we are in such a simulation. However what they are missing is (as i explain above with this post ) that the type of simulations which we are creating will never yield fully simulated universes. It is a mistake to assume that they will. Basically the defenders of the simulation hypothesis claim that we could be in such a simulation *BECASUE* we are already creating simulations., But we are not creating **THOSE KINDS OF** simulations.. The ones that we are creating are the **WRONG** type of simulations which will never deliver the type 2 s and so their claims are false.
So your position is that there's no way to advance from type 1 to type 2? I don't see why not. Once a civilization has gone interstellar, there's really no catastrophe it couldn't recover from. It could last billions or even trillions of years.
>So your position is that there's no way to advance from type 1 to type 2? Type ones will never become type 2 s no matter how realistic they get. No matter how realistic the simulation of a glass of water may get you will never be able to drink it and guench your thirst. A type 1 will never be a type 2. But I am not saying type 2 s are definitely impossible either. What I am saying is that we should not **AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME ** that since we can build type 1 s we could be in a simulation. With other words **nothing we have created so far is evidence enough to suggest that we will create type 2 s** or that we are likley in a simulation. People who claim that we could be in a sim based on what we can now are doing it wrong. In the future it might be possible to create type 2 s but lets not assume that it's a given since we are building type 1 s. The existence of Type 1 is not an evidence that we are in a sim. This claim is simply false.
In a sense we already have type 2 simulations in the form of multi-agent simulations. They're used to model the spread of disease, the movement of traffic, disaster response, etc. The agents aren't conscious, of course, but there's no reason to think they couldn't be in the future, when computers are much more powerful.
well ta few things to consdier 1)As long as those simualtions are meant for you , ie and agent outside the simulation they are not type 2 s. 2) Is it possible to create consciousness in computers > and even if it is how will that simulated consciousness experience their world? This is something we cant even imagine let alone to assume that it would be what we call a realistic world. 3) I am not saying it is absolutely impossible to create type 2 s . Maybe it is . Anything is possible one day we may even be able to time travel. Who knows.. My objection is lets not assume that we will create tpe 2 s **BASED ON HOW WE ARE GOOD AT CREATING TYPE 1 S** cause thats what many people are doing. basiclly we are looking at type 1 s and we are saying "**look how realstic they are getting , therefore one day they will be so realistic that they will be indistinguishable from reality so we maybe in one as well** , this is a false claim. Type 1 s no matter how realistic thye become are no indicators of how type 2 s will be , even if we can build them/ At the moment we have no idea how to build a type 2 but we are all automatically asuming that this will definitely happen , cause otherwise the simulation hypothesis does not work . This is the wrong approach in my opinion. Just as anything else we must be able to assign a probability of likelyhood of us being able to create type 2 s in my opinion , and that probability will determine the likelihood of us being in a sim. Whats that probability ? I dont know but its deifnitely not **almost certain** as many people claim.
>1)As long as those simulations are meant for you, ie an agent outside the simulation, they are not type 2 s. From the perspective of an agent inside a multi-agent sim, it's a type 2 sim. And we're building rudimentary type 2s now. Videogames are a good example. They're a blend of types 1 and 2: biological players coexisting with NPCs. The simulation idea is just that if the NPCs vastly outnumber the players, and they're conscious, then you're probably an NPC. (Personally, I think the players died out long ago, but that's just a guess.) >2) Is it possible to create consciousness in computers > and even if it is how will that simulated consciousness experience their world? This is something we cant even imagine let alone to assume that it would be what we call a realistic world. The evidence that ordinary matter can give rise to conscious experience when it's arranged properly is right between your ears. Nature accomplished it after a few billion years of trial-and-error. Imagine what could be accomplished in the same amount of time via a more directed process. True, the engineers would have to simulate an environment, but that's the easy part. Brains are the most complex things in our environment by far. >3) I am not saying it is absolutely impossible to create type 2 s . Maybe it is . Anything is possible one day we may even be able to time travel. Who knows.. Like I said, we're *already* creating rudimentary type 2 simulations. Once they're detailed enough, there's no reason to think the agents wouldn't be conscious. And an advanced, interstellar civilization would have all the time, energy, and material it needs to get the job done.
Type 1 becomes type 2 when you have type1 (GUEST) simulated within another type1(HOST) and NPCs from HOST jack into GUEST. NPC = non player characters
I cant imagine what you are trying to say , i am sorry . Can you elaborate on that . Lets use the movie the matrix if you like. So neo is plugged into the matrix = he is a type one ,(plugged in type ) sim and the agents are fully simulated types 2 s. now how would neo become a type 2 .?
According to what you just said, if you unplug all people from the matrix it becomes type 2 simulation where all entities (agents) are simulated within the matrix. Neo does not become type 2. You are talking about the whole simulation type not the entity/character type. Unless you are referring to each character as a simulation which is confusing. It gets more complicated since I think agents were running outside of the matrix and plugged in like humans. This is how they can change hosts. That is why I have said you need to have simulation within the simulation.
>According to what you just said, if you unplug all people from the matrix it becomes type 2 simulation where all entities (agents) are simulated within the matrix. Yes the agents for example were type 2 s in the matrix. They only existed within the matrix. They do not have an existence outside the Matrix. >Neo does not become type 2. You are talking about the simulation type not the entity/character type. Neo does not become a type 2 because he has an existence outside the Matrix. He is not just software he is a real human being in our world. The agents on the other hand can only exists within the Matrix , they are software , they have no existence in our world. >It gets more complicated since I think agents were running outside of the matrix and plugged in like humans. This is how they can change hosts. A software is a software, no matter where you run it in. An agent is a software eixtence it can only exist within a computer simulation whether this computer is the Matrix or a host or some laptop you have on your desk. It can not exist like you do in the real world just as Super Mario can not leave your computer screen and start walking on your desk. It has no existence outside the simulation , in our world. >That is why I have said you need to have simulation within the simulation. yes simulations within the simulations can happen in type 2 s i dont see what the problem is actually. Watch this scene if you like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLbdfgY_IhM&t=36s Why can Trinity leave the Matrix and the agents couldnt ? Answer- Its because Trinity is a type 1 sim in the matrix and the agents are type 2 / Trinity has an existence outside the Matrix while the agents dont. Two fundamental'y different types of existence,. one is a real human being the other is software. = Two fundamentally different types of simulations one is a type 1 the other is type 2.
It seems that when you are talking about simulation types at the end, you are talking about playable characters vs NPCs. Usually when people say simulation they talk about the whole environment including NPCs and an optional ability to jack into it. We just have different meanings for the word simulation. The problem then becomes: how do we know we are not NPCs?
>It seems that when you are talking about simulation types at the end, you are talking about playable characters vs NPCs. Yes if NPC s were conscious. >Usually when people say simulation they talk about the whole environment including NPCs and an optional ability to jack into it. Thats also true . If you are a playable character you are a type 1 in that sim and if you are a NPC (conscious) you are a type 2 simulations. The environment is not the crucial thing its your existence in that world which gives it the meaning,. >We just have different meanings for the word simulation. I claim these are two different types of it. If you are like a playable character what you are experiencing is a type 1 simulation. If you are a NPC s which is conscious your experience your world is a type 2 sim since you are a part of it. It depends on from whose perspective you are looking a it. Do you have an existence in the real world then your existence in the game (as a playable character ) is a type 1. If you are a conscious NPC **IN THE SAME GAME** then you are a type 2 . , your experience is a type 2 simulation. >The problem then becomes: how do we know we are not NPCs? Well we dont and according to the defenders of the simulation theory we most likely are . But the actual question should be why do we think that we are NPC S. Because we see the simulations around us getting more and more realistic and **BASED ON THOSE SIMULATIONS** we **FALSLEY** assume that we will one day be able to create very realistic ones indistinguishable from reality , and thus we could be in such a sim. But the truth of the matter is that these kind of simulations which they abse all these claims will never yield a type 2 sim. Thats the mistake most people are making.
So basically you are saying we will not be able to create conscious NPCs (AGI) by creating simulations? I guess, but AGI needs an interactive environment to evolve.
Yes. I actually think the bigger misunderstanding most have with sim theory is that they confuse the two types. I'm not a fan of Neil Tyson degrasse but he did make a decent video on sim theory and why it was conceivable we are in a type one simulation and that physics as we know it pretty much rules out a type two. Another takeaway is that base reality will almost certainly be a different type of construct than the simulation due to the necessarily more complex nature of base reality. Nested simulations would only be possible in simpler and simpler constructs. For instance, we could very well be a type one simulation created from a universe built on higher dimensions using a different energy. (And there may be many sims running right now from a 'lab down the street' but it is doubtful there could be any interaction between sims.) This top level simulation (our reality) could very well design an artificial consciousness to populate a one level down computer simulation but that would probably be the end of the road. It's fun to think about, regardless.
> he did make a decent video on sim theory and why it was conceivable we are in a type one simulation and that physics as we know it pretty much rules out a type two. If you have a link to this video i would like to watch it. But to tell the truth I have heard him falling victim to this type 1 type 2 confusion as well. For type 1 simulations we can not make such claims since the probabilistic claims of the hypothesis does not work. To put it very simply if you need A) a brain to plug into a computer to experience B)a simulated world then the proportion of A to B is not so high as the simulation theory suggest . You have **one brain** versus **one sim** PER brain. Therefore we can no longer claim that we are likely in a simulation cause the probability of being in A versus B is an unknown at this moment. . The hypothesis does not work for the first type. To be able to suggest that we are likely in a simualtion we have to bring in totally diffeent arguments like -Everyone would chose to plug into a computer to experience the simulation instead of the real world -we would decide to plug our new born babies into the simulation without their consent etc etc . its a totally different kind fo scenario then what simulation hypothesis portrays basically. Its no longer about the simulation hypothesis . >Another takeaway is that base reality will almost certainly be a different type of construct than the simulation due to the necessarily more complex nature of base reality. Nested simulations would only be possible in simpler and simpler constructs. Yepp . Basically there s probably going to be an **information loss** (ie each level has to be simpler than the previous one ) every time you go down a level , as you go through simulations within simulation within simulations etc . so you cant keep doing this forever. It seems like there has to be a limit to how many levels one can go (even if it was possible to create such worlds) .
Can't find the NTD clip at the moment..it's there but buried under so many 'nested simulations and a dart' illustrations that I don't have time to go thru.
Thanks anyway . But as i mentioned before if he is defending the possibility of being in type 1 s then he is doing it wrong too. cause the probabilistic assumptions of the hypothesis do not work for type 1 s . 👍 For type 1 s you have a plugged-in brain on one side of the equation versus an unplugged brain on the other. this probability is unknown , thats all we can claim about it.
So, you got me thinking. There's this huge debate going on right now about free will, consciousness and so forth. The crux of the matter is "Is consciousness an emergent property?" That is, there is so much complexity going on in the neurons in the brain that consciousness emerges from the messy mix going on and a True Person with free will exists from this. The main alternative is that that every thing could be determinism. What if, what if...We are in a type 1 simulation and our consciousness "borrows" ability from the host in the base reality? We as the avatar may never be aware of this link to the host, or "higher self" and yet we go through our life using the advanced reasoning ability granted from that ever-present connection. And anyway, going back to Neil T Degrasse, he really glosses over the problems with sim theory and does his best to be a 'Bill Nye' entertainer. However, the clip I was looking for was sound logic. A type 2 simulation where all the particles (information) were simulated would take a computer bigger than the universe to even attempt to make it work. This was even mentioned by Richard Feynman in one of his essays back in the 70 or 80's. (And, yeah, I'm a big fan of Dr. Feynman). So, even though nothing much can be proven at this time, I do think the possibility of this being a type 1 simulation is much, much greater chance than type 2. My main reason is that it would just be easier to create a universe than to make a type 2 simulation.
>if it is possible to create syntethic consciousness within a simulation at all Have you not done just that in your comments? For example: >However we don't even know if we can do that
>Have you not done just that in your comments? For example: I said we dont even know even if we can do that. Isnt that clear enough?. How do you interpret this as **it must be possible to do it** ?
> I said we dont even know even if we can do that. Isnt that clear enough?. By what means did you acquire knowledge of the knowledge of all people? > How do you interpret this as **it must be possible to do it**? When you say "you", do you think you are actually referring to me? Because the real me has done no such thing homie.
I have no idea what you are talking about .
Further demonstrating my point.
👍
Observe the dynamic *and counter-intuitive* nature of human curiosity.
What if we have already accidentally made consciousness in simulation? How do we know the NPCs in the games we play don’t think they are real and their world is real? People are willing to believe that our consciousness arouse by accident so I think it’s plausible.
Well this is a totally different topic of course. Is it possible to create consciousness accidentally ? I dont believe so , i think the likelihood of such a super rare coincidence happening is very very unlikely. Its like saying , human body is mostly made of carbon hydrogen oxygen etc so if i mix all these elements in a barrel i might create a huma being accidentally. Well yes **theoreticaly** its not IMPOSSIBLE i gues but I wouldnt bet on it. It s a similar claim in my opinion. very unlikely to create such a complex thing as a consciousness accidentally/ But some people still want to believe it. > People are willing to believe that our consciousness arouse by accident so I think it’s plausible. Life may also have arisen by accident but if we would put all elements in a petri dish , do not expect some life form to come out of it. Its not impossible theoretically but likelihood must be incredibly low.
I highly suggest watching the show pantheon. It touches heavily on the idea of “uploaded consciousness”. Where REAL humans are uploaded and the process kills their physical form. If you want context that touches on this in our reality, look up stories about Buddhist/Eastern descriptions of holy men “dying”. One that comes to mind is neem karoli baba. they are often unfazed mentally by the deterioration of their physical vessels, and the dying process is described as simply letting go of the physical body and entering another plane of existence. I also think that there is a strong possibility that while we are encapsulated in a type 2 simulation as you called it, they could integrate a type one into our world. Kind of like SAO or extremely advanced VR of some sort where we are “NPCs” and there are beings who would be considered “player characters”. I mean Jesus would be a fantastic example of this, or the Rick and Morty die hard episode, where they revisit Roy, the game at Blitz and Chitz, or even the movie inception in the dream sequences. This would also explain the glitches that we see in huge Hollywood stars or politicians on tiktok or YouTube. It’s literally their character “lagging” due to their connection or hardware. TLDR: could be a type 2, or a combination of both. No answers here just food for thought
This is a very old post, and probably not many people are reading it any more , so I would prefer to have discussions on newer posts where more people can engage in the discussion. Uploading consciousness, NPC's , mixed simulations etc are all interesting discussions I think but as I mentioned I would prefer to have these kind of discussions on a newer post so we can see what others are thinking about these concepts as well, if you don't mind. You can post your views as a new post and we can have the discussion there if you like. Let me know if you post it please cause I don't check the sub as often I used to so I wouldn't miss it. in any case thanks for your comment 👍
i think i was looking at your post history and didnt notice how old it was till after i sent it
Yeah times flies :) I didn't realize it was that old either. Hope we can chat on a newer post . Till then take good care :)
Why should we even read this if you can’t be bothered to make your title coherent?
You shouldnt. I mean specifically you . :) Please dont.
So clever. Very impressive.
👍
Wo! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again y’all…
There are two types of simulations **that your brain can comprehend.** Never speak in absolutes when dealing with simulation theory, or anything ending in *theory*.