Dear Elon
Why the Simulation Hypothesis Must Be Defeated
“Prototypes are easy, production is hard” — EM
Elon Musk is a technology genius, but he is wrong about the simulation hypothesis.
The Simulation Hypothesis (SH), which Elon playfully endorses, claims we are not living in the real world.
The steak may still taste good, but no paradigm could be more counter to true human freedom.
The SH might sound crazy– because it is (!) — but it’s probably the most popular philosophical argument in the cultural zeitgeist.
Given the mainstream nature of the simulation hypothesis, it is of public interest to consider the matter and to defeat the argument [f.n. 0].
But how do we proceed?
One of the most pernicious things about the SH is that it is usually considered to be unfalsifiable [f.n. 1].
As in, even if you think you have a counter-argument to the SH, one can invariably counter your counter by adding your reasoning into the cosmic conspiracy: “ya man, that’s just how the simulator set things up!”
So, what can we do– if anything?
As per usual, the EP Conjecture comes to our rescue [overview in f.n. 2]!
We need to remember that the simulation hypothesis — like all other (speculative) arguments — presupposes the base case of Nature: the always existor discussed in the EP Conjecture [f.n. 3].
Prototypes are easy, production is hard, and all existence requires the base case.
Therefore, the simulation hypothesis lacks purchase (i.e. is illegitimate) until the debt of identity of the base case.
What is “the debt of identity” you ask? Something cannot ever exist IF it has never existed. Therefore, all things that exist to the rationalist– whatever they are and however they exist– have had at least 1 instance of identity. Of what? Themselves.
Any good philosophy must prioritize Nature’s base case (the always existor), because it has ontological priority (highest precedence) and every-thing must be accounted for in our quest for best explanations as set off by Aristotle.
The always existor is the global origin or Source.
It’s like “0”, but not the number. Indeed, it’s not a mathematical object (i.e. formally definable).
From this new philosophical orientation, let us reconsider:
(1) We find a unique necessary first (the always existor)
(2) It’s the Source of all possibilities & an invariant (un-changing).
(3) Thus, the same thing which is necessarily existing as un-beginning & before all time (always), is likewise un-ending & beyond all time (forever).
The Simulation Hypothesis claims (1) a non-divine simulator and (2) that we are a non-divine simulated.
That requires *separation* from the real world (whatever is basic in reality) and our world (the hypothetical sim).
The hypothesis is that we’re more likely to be in a fake world because these outnumber the real.
But consider what we see as scientists: A 0-like big bang (I.e. initial condition) that appears to be the (local) origin of spacetime for our universe.
Well, what is space? It is all differences that must be encoded and those differences occupy space. So, if the always existor is the un-encoded baseline (before all time and without space), this is totally consistent.
We need the 0-like global origin, that’s the always existor. Its 1st identity exists before all time, as un-caused and un-beginning, without space (worthwhile aside: always is before all time ≠ “time = 0” or ∞ past time).
So, by Occum’s Razor: (1) we need the global origin (the always existor, because all share the same base case), (2) we only see only one origin (the BB), and (3) it looks like it needs to look based on what we think we know about the global one (0-like).
Thus, the precursor to our BB should be thought of as the global origin vs. a subsequent downstream local origin, unless there is another superseding reason to believe this is not the case.
So, where is the place of separation between us & the potential non-divine simulator? There is none.
There are no non-divine eternal simulators (i.e. that which are always). Nor does the global origin have “simulations” separate from the simulator (re: always has no parts and it’s not resultant of time or process like a normal created simulation, but instead un-caused, un-beginning, and before all time).
I don’t know what is in Nature’s Domain (sims, AGI, etc), but do “know” the always existor is the Source of everything, including our consciousness (i.e. 1st-Person-ness, experience, understanding, self, etc.).
Thus, by this argument I think we have strong reason to believe we are not in a non-Divine simulation.
Insofar there is a refutation, the simulation hypothesis is defeated [f.n. 4].
Would you really let them tell us our loved ones aren’t real? Not I.
⚔️ the simulation slayer
Footnotes
[0] In what way does this type of thinking affect real people in the real world? This paper — #51 Marching on the Black Gate — answers that question, arguing that the findings and results of this case file are important and of public interest. I worry that too many intellectuals today have forgotten the dual role: Ideas matter, but people are the reason why they do. And what people think about the world definitely matters too. Thus, it’s my great honor and joy to break nihilistic arguments on behalf of the people.
[1] IF there really is a “1st argument of philosophy” we start with that and follow its consequences. As discussed in the EP Conjecture, because there is a base case of Nature (the always existor), its first instance of identity has highest precedence. No argument or thought experiment (ex. the SH) has purchase until such debt of identity is paid. IF the simulation hypothesis doesn’t make sense after that perspective is given 1st priority, then it can be/is defeated!
[2] EP Conjecture: Because there is never a magic jump from absolute Nothing, IF there ever is Something there always was Something; where “always” means an existor which is un-caused, un-beginning & before all time. Because of us existing (Something), at least 1 base case existor must satisfy the always condition (otherwise we couldn’t be here). When you study “always”, you’ll find Necessity & Uniqueness. See 80 papers in 2024 as the case file of our Eternal Case: Something v. Nothing. Join the largest class action, ever! Extra: 1-page version, Argument Structure, and FAQ.
[3] Amazingly, this work was recently cited in a professional journal for the 1st time: The August 2024 edition of “Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology” (p. 56). The EP Conjecture was included as a counterexample to the increasingly mainstream claim that the “lights will turn on” for computers one day, becoming a new 1st party self-aware species (sentient AGI). This is directly relevant to the simulation hypothesis, because that argument pre-supposes that 1st person sentience (awareness or consciousness) is strictly physical and computational, and thus can and will be achieved by future technology. We argue that there doesn’t need to be any non-computable physics for consciousness itself to be non-computational– and so no violation of the Quantum Church Turing thesis or any laws of physics– IF (1) Nature’s base case is “always” (un-caused), (2) that existor is the Source of consciousness, and (3) what’s 1st is last.
[4] If you find this insufficient, firstly buzz off, then see f.n. 10.