How the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis Explains Just About Everything

How the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis Explains Just About Everything, Including the Very Existence of Quantum Mechanics by Marcus Arvan 

In my recently published article, “A New Theory of Free Will” , I argued that several serious philosophical and empirical hypotheses – hypotheses which have all received and continue to receive serious discussion by philosophers and physicists, and which may all turn out to be true – jointly entail that we are living in the functional equivalent of a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. Not only that, I argued that this P2P Hypothesis explains the very existence of almost all of the most puzzling features of our world:

1. Quantum indeterminacy and measurement problems.

2. Quantum entanglement.

3. The apparent irreducibility of conscious experience to physical objects, properties or functions.

4. The intuition that our personal identity, as conscious subjects of experience, is irreducible to any form of physical or psychological continuity.

5. The apparent “unreality of time” in the objective physical world, along with our subjective experience of the passage of time.

6. Our experience of ourselves as having free will despite our experiencing the physical world as causally closed under the laws of physics.

§1 of this essay briefly summarizes (a) the philosophical and empirical hypotheses that jointly entail the P2P Hypothesis, (b) how the P2P Hypothesis explains all six features of our mentioned above, and (c) the P2P Hypothesis’s four distinct empirical predictions.

§2 then shows something new: that even if the P2P Hypothesis is true, our world differs from the kind of P2P simulations we have constructed in one profound, fundamental way: a way that implies that reality cannot be reduced to mere quantitative information of the sort dealt with in the hard-sciences. Reality has fundamentally qualitative elements that cannot be understood as “information” in any traditional sense. 

Main site:

The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis

So basically we're a torrent.

Thanks for the link. I gotta dig into that one!

My problem with the sim hypothesis is NOT that it doesn't explain everything,,, it's that it has no ability NOT to explain everything.

It is theoretically a programmable system, and as such, can be programmed to do anything and everything. So any counterclaim against it can be refuted by saying, that's what it was programmed to do.

It's inherent inarguability, to me is a liability, a curse.

I mean, is there a test that one could devise to see if it exists or not? If so, I am not aware of one,, even theoretically.

It's kind of like when my mother would say "because I said so" in exasperation to my questions when I was a little kid. There was no question I could ask, where this answer couldn't be used. Eventually I would tire and give up.

I have had this conversation with Tom Campbell directly at an event a couple years back, and with his "followers". I eventually left the MBT on-line forum and a face to face discussion group because of the echo-chamber nature of the discussions, where, you either buy-in, in which case you have all the answers at your disposal, or you are viewed as just not getting it.

How the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis Explains Just About Everything, Including the Very Existence of Quantum Mechanics by Marcus Arvan 



Main site:

The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis

I enjoy learning about Arvan's arguments and think he is tackling the right questions.  When he writes

 Reality has fundamentally qualitative elements that cannot be understood as “information” in any traditional sense.

the argument loses me.

The primary qualitative element of reality is meaning and its expression in behavior is an understood experience.  Information's traditional definition is - meaningful facts and the qualities they can provide.

Sci, maybe you can point out how he argues this point.

My problem with the sim hypothesis is NOT that it doesn't explain everything,,, it's that it has no ability NOT to explain everything.

It is theoretically a programmable system, and as such, can be programmed to do anything and everything.  So any counterclaim against it can be refuted by saying, that's what it was programmed to do.

It's inherent inarguability, to me is a liability, a curse.

I mean, is there a test that one could devise to see if it exists or not? If so, I am not aware of one,, even theoretically.

Tests? I found this huffpost article among others containing links to such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/...82745.html

Lets boil down this giant computer system that supposedly is simulating us down to just a computer sitting in front of you.
For all intents and purposes all the software running on it, in the context of that machines capabilities, or it's own little world, 'explains' everything it's programmed to do.
I hope I'm explaining what I'm trying to say here somewhat clearly.

Tests? I found this huffpost article among others containing links to such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/...82745.html

Lets boil down this giant computer system that supposedly is simulating us down to just a computer sitting in front of you.
For all intents and purposes all the software running on it, in the context of that machines capabilities, or it's own little world, 'explains' everything it's programmed to do.
I hope I'm explaining what I'm trying to say here somewhat clearly.

What you are saying perfectly understandable, it just isn't really necessary, because I understand what this thing is. 

Heck, I spent about a month reading Tom Campbell's book about it (almost 900 pages), and 6 months on his web site talking about it, and a few Saturdays meeting with TC groupies and eating cookies and marveling at Tom's brilliance, and 2 hours having breakfast with Tom and after having him sign my book,  discussing it with him, and I came out of all that, understanding that it is self-proving theory. The simulation can be exactly like our life, because you can program a powerful enough computer to to whatever you want it to do. 

I'm saying that I don't like the theory because,, well my previous post really contains why...

The theory provides no solid evidence of it's validity other than if you had a computer powerful enough to simulate everything, it could be programmed to run just like what we see as real life. And yes it could simulate things like the speed of light and quantum entanglement and every other aspect of our existence.

As a matter of fact, whatever concern you can think of that might disprove the theory, could be integrated into the theory, into the software, so it wouldn't be a problem any more. 

I just don't like it in principal mostly because I don't think it can ever be proved or disproved. It is the ultimate case of just having faith. In my mind, I might as well just believe in a vengeful God.

Does all that make sense?

The theory provides no solid evidence of it's validity other than if you had a computer powerful enough to simulate everything, it could be programmed to run just like what we see as real life. And yes it could simulate things like the speed of light and quantum entanglement and every other aspect of our existence.

As a matter of fact, whatever concern you can think of that might disprove the theory, could be integrated into the theory, into the software, so it wouldn't be a problem any more. 

Does all that make sense?

Yes, I get what you're saying.  

I'm also thinking a kind of deus ex machina cosmic style plot device, lol

I enjoy learning about Arvan's arguments and think he is tackling the right questions.  When he writes
the argument loses me.

The primary qualitative element of reality is meaning and its expression in behavior is an understood experience.  Information's traditional definition is - meaningful facts and the qualities they can provide.

Sci, maybe you can point out how he argues this point.

AFAICTell when he uses the term Information he means in representation of bits. I agree his language is a tad confusing here, as the "traditional" sense of information would in fact include qualitative aspects but the computational sense would not.

My problem with the sim hypothesis is NOT that it doesn't explain everything,,, it's that it has no ability NOT to explain everything.

It is theoretically a programmable system, and as such, can be programmed to do anything and everything.  So any counterclaim against it can be refuted by saying, that's what it was programmed to do.

It's inherent inarguability, to me is a liability, a curse.

I mean, is there a test that one could devise to see if it exists or not? If so, I am not aware of one,, even theoretically.

It's kind of like when my mother would say "because I said so" in exasperation to my questions when I was a little kid. There was no question I could ask, where this answer couldn't be used. Eventually I would tire and give up.

I have had this conversation with Tom Campbell directly at an event a couple years back, and with his "followers". I eventually left the MBT on-line forum and a face to face discussion group because of the echo-chamber nature of the discussions, where, you either buy-in, in which case you have all the answers at your disposal, or you are viewed as just not getting it.

There is an identical problem with models that appeal to a god.

There is an identical problem with models that appeal to a god.

I might be way off base in understanding what is being talked about in this thread (not having read the links, etc.) but I think there is a crucial difference between positing a computer generating a simulation and us living in a virtual reality existing in the mind of God (or source, or universal consciousness or whatever name you choose).

The computer would presumably be programmed by other minds - perhaps alien - which, presumably, live in a material universe and not a simulated one. Or maybe they are a simulation in a computer another level up (13th Floor, anyone?). How does that move us on from where we are now in our speculations?

God, on the other hand, might be thought of (and is, in some philosophies) as the uncreated ... that which is and what it is is all that is (er, sorry!).