Spore and the Simulation Argument
Posted by andyslack on 26 October 2008
After a concerted campaign of savings, selling off unwanted possessions, and unusually long-range planning, Nick has acquired a copy of Spore, and is thoroughly enjoying it. This is one of his “God games” – he has been a huge fan of games like Pharaoh and Alpha Centauri for as long as he has been allowed on the computer. Spore, for those not familiar with it, allows one to guide the destiny of an entire species (or, properly, clade, I suppose) from a micro-organism in a tide pool to an interstellar civilisation.
The long-term planning part involved upgrading the PC graphics card, then the power supply (turns out the old power supply didn’t have enough volts to power the card, and in fact the new one might not as we still get artefacts – weird triangular blobs and streaks of colour on the display), before finally installing the game. He’s been up in the study playing it pretty much ever since, at least whenever we let him. I can hear the plaintive calls of his latest species as I type.
I was surprised how far these sort of games have come over the last few years – they’re not my cup of tea, and our hardware is about 5 years behind the curve now. Philosophically, I have to wonder at what point the simulated thoughts and feelings of the little sprites on screen cross over into actual intelligence and emotion. It really does make me think about the Simulation Argument. For those not familiar with that, let me quote the abstract of Professor Bostrum’s paper:
“ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.”
I think we can rule out (2), given the number of PC games like The Sims. (3) offers possible answers to the question “If there is a Creator, why do pain and death exist?” – it might be educational for those running it; it might be research; it might be a game; or perhaps, like software modules, we are undergoing stress testing before release into the live environment. If the simulators exist, and if they are like us, it’s most likely a game of some sort – that’s what most of our simulations are.
Not that it will make much difference to how any of us live our lives; nor should it. Unless, as in The Matrix, someone offers me a red pill…
Randy McDonald said
The reading of our lives as someone else’s game does have interesting consequences if only because of our reactions to being played. A difference is a difference if we know about it. I think.
andyslack said
I agree it would make a difference if we knew for certain not only that we were being played, but what the player’s objectives were, and what would happen to you if they were, or were not, achieved. If you don’t know what the player wants, you have no information on how to change your behaviour, so you may as well live whatever way seems best to you. If you do know the player’s aims, you can decided whether or how best to change how you live.