Maybe life is a simulation.

[simulism]

Russell, on 'recursive simulations', see http://www.simulism.org/Stacking

I've been giving the egg-thing some more thought. One of you said that there was an outside consciousness that moves the eggs around. The eggs do not move by themselves. And that that is the difference between the eggs and true consciousness. But I think that argument is flawed, as we cannot tell anything about our own consciousness; whether it is 'on itself' or 'controlled by something on the outside'.

Jos: I wonder whether 'awareness' of the simulation will have effect on morality. For some it may have a drastic effect, whereas in essence, it shouldn't change anything.

[dryn]

I've been giving the egg-thing some more thought. One of you said that there was an outside consciousness that moves the eggs around. The eggs do not move by themselves. And that that is the difference between the eggs and true consciousness. But I think that argument is flawed, as we cannot tell anything about our own consciousness; whether it is 'on itself' or 'controlled by something on the outside'.

There needn't be an outside consciousness however, there doesn't have to be anyone moving them. Think about if it were just in the nature of eggs to move around in that particular way?

Jos: I wonder whether 'awareness' of the simulation will have effect on morality. For some it may have a drastic effect, whereas in essence, it shouldn't change anything.

If our world was just a simulation and we were wholly in the sim (as in we aren't brains-in-a-vat but simulations ourselves) would we be merely be p-zombies? If would you say morality is a little irrelevant?

[Jos Elkink]

I think I actually agree with simulism, that it should not affect morals that much. I mean, if it does, why is it different now? What kind of assumption are we making about our own existence then that creates our ethical systems?

Or is free will the key to ethics and once we accept we don't have any, we don't have to take the blame for anything we do?

[deadboy]

If the simulism theory were correct, I would see no need for an ethical system

[Russell of Los Angeles]

If the simulism theory were correct, I would see no need for an ethical system

Ethics could still be useful in a simulation. For example, utilitarian principles could still be used to reduce suffering and increase happiness.

Let's imagine that the charries in Cantr II have conscious awareness. They have perceptions and experiences, pleasure and pain, that seem just as real to them as our experiences seem to us. Now let's imagine that a disgruntled PD member tries to ruin the game by putting a note in every town revealing the "truth": Cantr II is a society simulator. How would the charries react? Many would disbelieve it. Some would believe or suspect it might be true, but choose to ignore it. Some would get really angsty and depressed about it, then learn to move on. And some might lash out violently and try to argue that they are justified because life is a simulation. The others would not tolerate the violence. The characters would defend their world and their lives and make ethical arguments for doing so. It may be a simulation, but it is still their world, their lives, and the foundation for their hopes, dreams, passions. They'll continue on with their relationships, friendships, political groups. Those are the sorts of things that ethical systems are based on.

[formerly known as hf]

Assuming that the simulation is advanced enough to have provided the characters with individual self-awareness and a variation on free will?

[Russell of Los Angeles]

Russell, on 'recursive simulations', see http://www.simulism.org/Stacking

I've been giving the egg-thing some more thought. One of you said that there was an outside consciousness that moves the eggs around. The eggs do not move by themselves. And that that is the difference between the eggs and true consciousness. But I think that argument is flawed, as we cannot tell anything about our own consciousness; whether it is 'on itself' or 'controlled by something on the outside'.

Jos: I wonder whether 'awareness' of the simulation will have effect on morality. For some it may have a drastic effect, whereas in essence, it shouldn't change anything.

Stacking doesn't strike me as being a problem for a simulator powerful enough to handle the detail we observe in daily life.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

Assuming that the simulation is advanced enough to have provided the characters with individual self-awareness and a variation on free will?

Yes. But when it comes to the question of whether our own world is a simulation, this assumption is one of the least fantastical ones we would have to make. I mean that our own self-awareness and something like free will are obvious enough. So, in responding to deadboy, I don't think all ethical systems would collapse if the simulation theory proved true, because we do have these special qualities.

[simulism]

If our world was just a simulation and we were wholly in the sim (as in we aren't brains-in-a-vat but simulations ourselves) would we be merely be p-zombies? If would you say morality is a little irrelevant?

No, that is not what I mean. I mean that ethics and 'rules' are set by the environment in which you live. I mean, if you play Cantr you play by the cantr rules, if you live in france, you abide by their rules. The fact whether or not it is a simulation does not really change that, it's just a matter of scope.

Regarding free will: that is a discussion almost worth it's own topic. The very very short version: free will doesn't exist (or the catchier phrase I tend to use: 'choice is an illusion').

[formerly known as hf]

I would tend to agree with you.
Only to the extent that our 'concious' free will - the many of the choices we make conciously are, in fact, not concious descisions, but made by our brains before we percieve conciously choosing them. (She sells sea shells...)
The concioussness of choice is just a by-product of self-awareness, the choices are still 'primitive instinct', for want of a better description.

But, yes, a topic unto itself.

[dryn]

Jos: I wonder whether 'awareness' of the simulation will have effect on morality. For some it may have a drastic effect, whereas in essence, it shouldn't change anything.

If our world was just a simulation and we were wholly in the sim (as in we aren't brains-in-a-vat but simulations ourselves) would we be merely be p-zombies? If would you say morality is a little irrelevant?

No, that is not what I mean. I mean that ethics and 'rules' are set by the environment in which you live. I mean, if you play Cantr you play by the cantr rules, if you live in france, you abide by their rules. The fact whether or not it is a simulation does not really change that, it's just a matter of scope.

I get what you are saying and I agree with it but you aren't really relating that to what I said. I am asking that if we are simulated constructs then does ethics (the rules set by the enviroment) have any real meaning inside the sim?
In Cantr I have a char that likes hurting people, which is based on events in his early life. Me, outside the sim (in a world I am assuming that has primacy), thinks that this is immoral but inside, the char thinks it is fine. Now, the char is just a zombie (although 'puppet zombie' is more appropriate I suppose) so would you call his code of ethics 'valid'?

(Note, I have severe doubts about moral relativism but I don't have any real substance to the opinion. That is why I am wondering what people think about this aspect.)

(Other thoughts: I have a char with a saber. Is the saber valid? Obviously only in the sim (it's a matter of scope as simulism said). If a char wrote a book then is that valid? Yes, as the book (as a sequence of letters at least) can be easily brought into the real world. The difference? Translatibility it seems. So if we define ethics to be based on environment then does my chars upbringing, and thus his ethics have translatability? In this case yes (As it can be parsed meaningfully across. It is possible, I suppose, that you could devise a simulation that has elements or underlying mechanics that couldn't be brought across. (Hmm...I think I have answered my own question. Bah, I think I will just click submit anyway...yeah I think I will.)).)

[simulism]

I'm not sure what you mean with 'valid'. It is the environment that decides what is ethical and what is not; even in our world there are people not acting according to our morals, which is why we have systems in place to correct them and to teach our morals to others.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

A friend of mine blogged...

“1 of 6 Highly Improbable Metaphysical Scenarios Proposed In Dreams as the Penultimate Answer to the Question Why”
Childhood Conundrums Processed by an Adult & Submitted for Your Enjoyment with Coffee or Tea



Human being as Ontological von Neumann Probes:

Life as we know it began as an effort to answer a question belonging to a class of questions forming the “search for meaning” with which all beings invariably find themselves confronted. The “question” was posed by a group of transcendentally rational beings inhabiting a plane of existence we rational beings can describe only as “encompassing” our own plane of existence.

This description of “encompassment” is, in fact, entirely incorrect, given that our most basic concepts of {outside, inside} are valid only within the confines of a regional ontology. In fact, the ultimate question these lonely outsider beings were asking is not even vaguely referenceable in any language known to man, or any beings arriving at consciousness within the confines of our universe, for that matter…it is merely, in some ineffable way, analogous to our ultimate question.

We were “designed” by these transcendental beings – or at least – the conditions preceding our existence were set in place by these beings – and whatever should arise in this experimental universe is intended to come into being and to spend the duration of its existence asking questions of its own, to then replicate itself along with its questions and knowledge, and to then send these replicas into the world to do the same. This process, at least within the region of our ontology - the one generated for us when they began this great calculation - will continue ceaselessly and without relent; for “duration” is not a condition of this world “outside” of our world.

For these transcendental beings, “duration” does not occur.

Nothing occurs.

Yet our search for meaning is, in some small way, analogous to their search for meaning, as though our multi-dimensional question valid only within our world can be projected for them as a flat plane, or a lowly line, or a single point of data from which they can draw a part of their conclusion, and in some unforeseeable future, our secret purpose will be fulfilled when our search for meaning provides for these beings the infinitesimal portion of the Great Answer.

We can reasonably expect that there is an infinitude of universes like our own; or different from our own. Each of them infinite in their own right, spiraling ceaselessly toward some ultimate end.

And given that for these transcendental beings who brought our universe about, “nothing occurs”, our regional ontology can provide for us at least, the following dimly accurate conclusion:

We have already fulfilled that Great Purpose, and despite their having turned all their great universal machines “off”, within our ontology at least, we will continue ceaselessly, without relent, in an unending plummet toward nothing in particular.

Lonely, afraid, and with only each other.

[simulism]

Do you have a link to the original article? I'd like to link it from simulism.org. If it's not online, maybe you can suggest your friend to post it on my site in the 'essays' section.