Sure that is possible. But it doesn't matter because we can't test it.
The issue is basically this: When we do science we want to test whether or not a proposition is true or not.
Such a proposition might be
A implies B.
However, this single proposition is not the set of possible propositions, and we have to find a way to tell which one is true.
So suppose its possible to have A implies D or B implies D or C implies D. I.E. Of potential causes of D we have A, B, or C.
If we want to go and test this we need to find only one of A, B, or C as well as finding D. If we find A and B and D then we can't tell whether or not its A or B that causes D.
The problem of science is a bit harder since we don't have an explicit set of possible theories, we just have sets of theories we haven't falsified yet, and the number of things in them is infinite.
So what we look for is A and not B, and if we find it, we rule out that theory. And if we don't find it we accept that as a small amount of evidence for the theory.
The problem of testing the simulation theory then boils down to this fundamental issue.
If we create a simulation and then find that it looks like our reality we only have B, we don't have A or not A or not B.
Another way to think of it would be to do a thought exercise.
If our reality was a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the simulation?
If our reality was not a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the reality?
The answer to both is obviously "yes". Since the answer to both is yes, doing a simulation and finding that it mimic's something that we see doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we are in a simulation or not
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-12-23 02:19 pm (UTC)The issue is basically this: When we do science we want to test whether or not a proposition is true or not.
Such a proposition might be
A implies B.
However, this single proposition is not the set of possible propositions, and we have to find a way to tell which one is true.
So suppose its possible to have A implies D or B implies D or C implies D. I.E. Of potential causes of D we have A, B, or C.
If we want to go and test this we need to find only one of A, B, or C as well as finding D. If we find A and B and D then we can't tell whether or not its A or B that causes D.
The problem of science is a bit harder since we don't have an explicit set of possible theories, we just have sets of theories we haven't falsified yet, and the number of things in them is infinite.
So what we look for is A and not B, and if we find it, we rule out that theory. And if we don't find it we accept that as a small amount of evidence for the theory.
The problem of testing the simulation theory then boils down to this fundamental issue.
If we create a simulation and then find that it looks like our reality we only have B, we don't have A or not A or not B.
Another way to think of it would be to do a thought exercise.
If our reality was a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the simulation?
If our reality was not a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the reality?
The answer to both is obviously "yes". Since the answer to both is yes, doing a simulation and finding that it mimic's something that we see doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we are in a simulation or not