Hacker News

If you give up the idea of minds themselves being digital, then one interesting possibility is that the world is a training simulation/form of education.

Imagine a far future where humanity has solved most all its problems. A post-scarcity utopia where abundance is the default, no one wants for anything material, and even aging has been cured. Sounds like a great place, right? But utopia has a problem. How do you raise children in an environment where they never need want for anything? How do you raise a child to not be a narcissistic monster when they have access to what amounts to a replicator and an army of servant droids? How do you effectively raise children in a society of immortals, where only a very small number of children are born each year as very few births are required to maintain the population?

One possibility is that you don't even try to raise children in paradise. Instead, you stick them in a simulation. Just raise them in an era before utopia came about. A simulation based on the 21st century wouldn't be a bad choice. Early enough in history that people still have material struggles. But late enough that people are experienced with the idea of technological progress. Most ancient societies thought that technology declined with time, rather than advancing. And raising someone through a grinding virtual life as a Medieval peasant or Roman slave is probably far more hardship than the simulators have in mind. The 21st century isn't a bad choice for a time to set a training simulation. Plus, there's the whole overarching themes of environmental stewardship and the potential consequences therein.

That would be a pretty strong motivation to create simulations. A society of godlike immortals may simply not be capable of raising sane children. So you don't even try. You just raise the next generation, few as they may be at any one time, in a virtual recreation of a historical era.

Maybe when you die in this world, you just wake up in the real world. Your education is complete when you've demonstrated some level of moral responsibility, to whatever standards the simulators value. Spent your life as a ruthless greedy billionaire? Back in the tank, you're taking another few simulated lifetimes to work that mess out of you.

The simulation wouldn't actually include all those billions of stars and galaxies. In this kind of simulation, it's all just a skybox. If you point a telescope at a distant star, then the simulation spins up a sub-simulation to produce what output a real star would experience in that situation. You include the stars and galaxies because the real universe contains them, and you want your simulation to be realistic.

It actually does make sense that the simulation would be created for us. Compare the level of computing power required to create a limited human-centric simulation to trying to simulate an entire universe. The whole-universe simulation would be some absurd power of ten times more difficult to simulate. If it is possible to simulate a world convincingly, then it's reasonable to assume that there are many, many more low-res human-scale simulations than giant full universe simulations.

With the whole universe simulation, you also have the problem of scale. It's hard to imagine that an entire universe can be simulated at the atomic level with anything less complex than the universe itself. Unless you have a universe-sized computer, you probably aren't simulating an entire universe with atomic accuracy. A human-scale simulation could be performed in a universe no more complex or different from the one we observe. An atomic-scale universe-spanning simulation would have to be run from a higher level that has completely different physical laws than the one we inhabit. Occams' razor applies. If you want to assume a simulation, it makes sense to assume a type that requires the least exotic higher-order "real" universe possible.