Elon Musk thinks the odds are a billion to one that we are all living in a computer simulation. He echoes Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom’s influential argument. This post makes a case that Bostrom and Musk are wrong. We are almost certainly not living in a simulation.
Any civilization sufficiently developed to get close to the technological level needed to run high-level, reality-convergent simulations must be economically integrated at a global level. This would give a few wealthy and powerful individuals potentially planet-altering influence. A minority of these global influencers would almost certainly be psychopaths, which would lead to global destabilization, as a few amoral individuals manipulated complex and chaotic systems for their own gains. If, on the other hand, a civilization were to reject the social conditions that would make this centralization of power possible, it would be unlikely to develop the economic framework required for advanced simulations. This hypothetical scenario creates a problem for Bostrom and Musk’s view.
This argument may seem a stretch, even shocking, but let’s take it step-by-step.
Living in sim
The idea that our “reality” is a simulation is not as far-fetched as it might sound. Our senses do not show us the world itself. Our brains receive and interpret signals from sensory receptors, and they use this input to build a model of what we call “reality.” For example, we (our conscious “selves”) have no direct access to “things” that we “see,” not even to the light that bounces off them. Our eyes convert that light to electrical signals, and our brains use those signals to build a picture that we assume corresponds to “the real world.” Our sense of reality is always second or third hand. Optical illusions make it clear that we do not experience reality: we construct it. Perhaps you truly are a living body in a real world. Perhaps you are a Matrix-style brain in a vat, with an advanced computer pumping the right sorts of signals into “you.” There is no way that you could tell the difference, based on what your senses (supposedly) tell you. The input is the same either way.
At a deeper level, there is no way you can tell if you even have or are a brain. Your thoughts, your emotions, your self-consciousness are all electrical signals. It is possible that “you” are running on a wetware substrate (your brain), but it is also possible that “you” are running on a hardware substrate (a hypothetical super-computer). How could you tell the difference? The electrical signals are the same either way.
So, unless you just reject the implications of current scientific and technological developments (welcome to the flat Earth), there is no denying that we could be living in a highly-advance, reality-convergent simulation. But why do Bostrom and Musk think that we almost certainly are?
Why we are likely living in a simulation
Bostrom’s argument has three parts:
1. If any civilization gets to the point where it can run high-level simulations, then it will run many of them. (Once computation develops to that point, there could be simulations running inside simulations.) If this technology ever gets off the ground, then the number of simulated realities that exist will soon vastly outnumber the number of real ones.
2. If there are a huge number of simulations for every real world (seeing as we can’t tell whether we are in one or not), then the odds are also huge that we live in one of the many simulations, as opposed to one of the few realities. The argument is stronger if we grant the possibility of trillions of advanced civilizations in the universe, with some running vast numbers of simulations. But it works even if we were the only one. We can’t disprove the possibility that a more advanced, future version of our world is capable of running high-level simulations. Perhaps we inhabit a historical simulation running in that world.
3. The only way to avoid Bostrom’s conclusion – that we are almost certainly living in a simulation – is if something always stops the production of high-level simulations. Bostrom points to two possibilities. (1) Either no civilization ever gets to this point of technological development. Or (2) every developed civilization for some reason refuses to develop such simulations. The latter makes little sense. (Since when do human beings not push technology to unethical limits, if profit, status or research grants beckon?) Bostrom finds the former unlikely.
Most discussions focus on the eye-candy issues of technology, virtuality and statistics. (Some call the whole debate pointless.) There has not been enough discussion of the first of Bostrom’s two options under point 3 above.
Why we are likely NOT living in a simulation
There is a reason why all civilizations will likely fail to get to the level of technological development required to run high-level simulations. The same civilizational conditions necessary for developing high-level simulations of reality amplify the chaotic effects of psychopathy. The argument has three parts:
1. Evolutionary pressures lead inevitably to the development of a minority of radically amoral individuals, notably psychopaths.
According to the FBI, “psychopathy is the most dangerous of the personality disorders.” It is a distinct condition that manifests along a spectrum. In general terms, psychopaths are grandiose, egocentric, deceptive, manipulative, opportunistic, domineering, aggressive, impulsive, emotionally shallow, cold and calloused. They ignore social conventions, laws and morals as they pursue their own interests. They lack empathy, guilt and remorse. Their “chronic and flagrant disregard for the welfare of others” may reflect “a cognitive deficit, specifically an inability to automatically take another person’s perspective.” Crucially, they do not learn from their mistakes. The closely related “Dark Factor of Personality” includes “five specific factors … Callousness, Deceitfulness, Narcissistic Entitlement, Sadism, and Vindictiveness.” In a nutshell, psychopaths are disinhibited, bold, and mean. Yet, they can be highly intelligent and tend to be seen as more trustworthy than others. In his pioneering 1941 book, The Mask of Sanity, psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley wrote, “the surface of the psychopath … shows up as equal to or better than normal.”
The prevalence of psychopathy in the general population is generally estimated at about 1% (others suggest as high as 4.5%). It is more common in men. The percentage of “secondary psychopaths” is much higher (those with lesser degrees of these characteristics). And “psychopathy” can overlap with other diagnostic categories. Bottom line: there are likely between 80 and 350 million psychopaths on the planet.
At least some types of psychopathy are in part genetic, and there are characteristic differences in brain structure and functioning. This makes it hypothetically possible to identify, and limit the impacts of, a significant proportion of these individuals. “Successful” psychopaths (who tend to avoid prison and who often achieve rewarding careers) have fewer and less severe manifestations of these neurobiological risk factors. They engage less in extreme antisocial behavior and have a greater ability to detect cues of future punishment: they are better at hiding from sight.
Psychopaths are not mutants or monsters. Like it or not, psychopathy is natural. Current research strongly suggests that primary psychopaths are simply expressing an inherited trait that benefits them, though it harms others. Evolutionary psychopathologists suggest that it evolved as a effective minority survival strategy: “a number of psychological and behavioral traits typical of primary psychopaths could well have contributed to reproductive and survival success in the ancestral environment.” Cheating works, but only for a small minority: “an individual’s opportunistic behaviour at the expense of altruists can succeed only if a small fraction, figuring perhaps around 1 percent, of people behaves selfishly. This estimate comes close to the prevalence of psychopathy.” Amoral deception has the greatest payoff in four areas of life: war, politics, business and sex.
Let’s underline this sobering thought. Psychopathy is not a human aberration. It was produced by the same forces of natural selection that resulted, less directly, in morality. It is an inevitable development in the evolution of any intelligent species. It is the dark side of morality, and this will be true in any civilization of evolved beings.
It would be unreasonable and irresponsible to suggest that any specific individuals have some particular personality disorder. These conditions are notoriously hard to diagnose, and psychologists disagree on terminology, etiology, diagnoses, prevalence and on genetic, physiological and evolutionary aspects. Expert diagnosis in controlled settings is tricky, so amateurish finger-pointing is a fool’s game. However, the general issue is relevant to Bostrom’s argument.
2. Psychopaths gravitate to positions of wealth, power and influence, and this amplifies their impact.
“Snakes in suits” are a powerful force in the world:
people driven by needs for power, dominance and prestige often seek and end up in leadership positions…. This seems entirely logical given the personality characteristics that have been found to be associated with many leaders and the fact that in many ways leadership positions involve the exertion of power and control over resources.
About half of people meeting the criteria of psychopathy go through life undiagnosed and undetected. “Successful,” “functional,” “corporate,” or “organizational” psychopaths avoid prison and channel their aggressivity, lies and manipulation toward pragmatic goals, often with great success: “Some psychopaths are violent and end up in jail; others forge careers in corporations.” The proportion of psychopaths is larger in the financial and business sectors than in the general population: especially at the senior level.
The same appears to hold for politicians, though evidence remains circumstantial: “Characteristics associated with psychopaths are … associated with successful politicians.” Washington, D.C., “is measured to be far more psychopathic than any individual state in the country.” A study of 42 U.S. presidents found that “the boldness associated with psychopathy is an important … predictor of presidential performance.”
3. Increasing globalization and integration of the economy, politics, technology and communications (factors essential to the rise of advanced computation) give some individuals so much wealth and power that a radically amoral minority among that group could negatively impact the entire planet.
Many if not most of the hyper-wealthy and globally-powerful are no doubt relatively ethical. But, if the psychologists are right, a minority of these global influencers are almost certainly psychopaths with a dangerous combination of (1) no moral conscience and (2) sufficient power to set off chains of events that could trigger a global chaotic collapse. To distinguish this tiny hypothetical group of psychopaths with global reach and impact, we can call them rogue agents of a psychopathic threshold of rupture (RAPTRs).
The past century and especially the past decades have seen the rise of structural nodes or niches from which single individuals can pull the strings of global webs of finance, communication, technology and policy-making. For the first time in history, the levers of power have global reach. Many of the people in these positions are upstanding citizens and great humanitarians. Some, if psychologists are right, are psychopaths.
RAPTRs have the psychopathic characteristics of self-interest, overconfidence, a profound sense of their own specialness and entitlement, absence of empathy, disregard for the impact of their actions on others, and incapacity to learn from mistakes. This makes it probable that their attempts to manipulate economic, political, legal, technological, communication and social structures at a global level would fail to take proper account of the complex and chaotic nature of these systems. If initial attempts to dominate all or large parts of the world did not trigger collapse, the next wave of RAPTRs would.
In this scenario, RAPTRs could be stopped only by social and political mechanisms that prevent their gaining or holding on to this level of power. Three factors make it unlikely that this would happen in any hypothetical civilization.
First, if reliable and far-reaching diagnoses of psychopathy were possible, the degree of technological development necessary for such techniques would also require a centralized and globalized economy. By the time scientific knowledge, diagnostic imaging, and genetic techniques progressed that far, so would the power of RAPTRs. The limited window of opportunity for societies to react – given the degree of power already in the hands of RAPTRs at that hypothetical point – could not prevent collapse. (Leaving aside the possibility that biomedical sciences and technologies might be captured by RAPTRs for very different purposes.)
Second, and ironically, the measures that would be needed to block RAPTRs – drastically limiting their rights for the good of society – are constraints that only psychopaths would impose on others without a second thought. Morally oriented experts and decision-makers would debate endlessly and then fail to react quickly and effectively (perhaps with well-funded interventions by wealthy interested parties). If RAPTRs are a naturally occurring minority – if psychopathy is evolved, heritable and statistically predictable – then morality may be the Achilles’ heel of globalized civilizations, hamstringing any attempt to contain the radically amoral few.
Third, there is likely no way to diagnose all relevant personality disorders. RAPTRs might manifest a type of “secondary” rather than genetic or structural psychopathy. If that is the case, then the only fix is one that undermines Bostrom’s argument in a different way.
Linda Mealey argued in 1995 that the way to prevent the impact of such “secondary sociopaths” would be “to implement programs that reduce social stratification [for example, preventing a rich-poor divide], anonymity, and competition.” The only way to guarantee that psychopaths do not become RAPTRs – with the power to destabilize an entire civilization – is to prevent global centralization and integration of economies and communications. If global networks develop, RAPTRs will wield global power, but not if their impact is limited to local networks. A thousand years ago, psychopathic leaders could impact a region; today they could destroy our world. What are the chances that a civilization would see this risk and halt globalizing economic development, when market pressures push for it so relentlessly? Not so great...
Free markets and evolution mainly produce functional effects. But opportunities for gaming the system, along with psychopathy, are natural and unavoidable side-effects in both. Both free markets and evolution work at the level of broad statistical effects, and both are vulnerable to the radical experiments of a staggeringly powerful few.
Summing up…
Bostrom’s argument faces a dilemma: either RAPTRs crash civilizations before high-level simulations can develop; or preventing the emergence of RAPTRs prevents the emergence of the economic conditions required for such simulations. This is a zero-sum game: you can’t have both a level of economic and technological development that supports high-level simulations and a world that avoids concentrating power in the hands of a few. One way or the other, it is very unlikely that any civilisation will produce the simulations that Bostrom’s argument calls for. Minimally, this argument forces a drastic reduction in the odds of our living in a simulation.
This is a hypothetical contribution to discussions of Bostrom’s simulation thesis. It reflects my interest in comparing trans/posthumanisms and religion. The argument is debatable at points, but it is worth putting on the table. For example, if it holds any water, then RAPTRs are a bigger threat to the human species than anthropogenic climate change.
I am not saying that any of this is happening, that one or many RAPTRs actually exist, that they would work together, or that they would work in secret, if they were to exist. So, this is not a conspiracy theory by any stretch of that vague idea. But it might be wise to keep our eyes open. Look around, and draw your own conclusions.
How to evaluate this argument
When the idea first occurred to me, I dismissed it as far-fetched, but that reaction obviously carries no weight. So, I thought some more. This argument should be assessed as an argument. The idea that psychopaths are bound to get their hands on global levers of power as these develop is a simple inference from expert views. In other words, the disturbing part of the argument – that the world will inevitably have to deal with RAPTRs – is simple and obvious, if you accept the psychological research. The part of the argument worth debating is the more philosophical one: whether the odds of chaotic civilizational collapse are sufficient to pose a problem for Bostrom’s simulation argument. The rest is clear-cut.
It would be irrational (if comforting) to just reject the conclusion because you don’t like it, because it is surprising, disturbing, or does not fit with your presuppositions. The first lesson of thinking critically is not to impose your gut reactions and personal opinions. Being neither a psychopath nor one of the most powerful people on the planet, I am in no position to infer what is likely or not when those two strange worlds collide.
Two lines are useful for thinking more about this perspective.
First, given the obvious fact that psychopaths will wield more power as power becomes more centralized, what have societies done to minimize this risk? What checks, balances, policies, procedures, laws and oversight mechanisms have been put in place to block psychopaths from holding positions of power?
Second, imagine the most amoral, manipulative, uncaring, remorseless, aggressive, power-hungry person you know, either personally or in pop-culture. (Not blood-thirsty, not a serial killer, “just” someone who will stop at nothing to get what they want.) Imagine that they were one of the most powerful people on the planet, with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal. Imagine that you are this person. What could you do, as you scheme for total power? How would you extend your influence? What institutions would you corrupt and how: media? corporate? political? regulatory? NGO? scientific? What sort of people might you network with? Could you be held accountable?
That last question is the important one. Concentration of power empowers psychopaths. Religion and fiction solve the problem with an appeal to higher powers: evil and amoral villains are put in their place by God, gods, superheroes, secret societies, or the destruction of a ring of power. (Or the fix could be programmed in a simulation...) In a real world, how could we, the moral masses, protect ourselves from the globalization of psychopathy?
This post explores a terrifying line of thought. I wish it made less sense. But there’s a silver lining: at least we probably don’t live in a simulation.
Or is that a bright side? In his discussion of Bostrom’s argument, Musk adds (at 3’10”), “we should hope that that’s true [that we are living in a simulation] because otherwise, if civilization stops advancing, then that may be due to some calamitous event that [inevitably] erases civilization.” For Musk, it is preferable to live happily in the Matrix than to face the end of civilization in the real world. Despite Bostrom and Musk’ optimism, we should at least consider the possibility that – due to the globalization of psychopathy – the second option is the more likely one.
Is there is a middle-ground, in this hypothetical scenario, between the view that we live in a simulation and the dystopia presented here? Maybe we live in an exceptional reality, one in which people around the planet could unite to prevent the ascendance of the radically amoral.
You ask "In a real world, how could we, the moral masses, protect ourselves from the globalization of psychopathy?"
Laurent Guyénot introduces the powerful notion of a systemic psychopathy induced by a ‘cognitive virus’ transmitted over hundreds of generations, which is self destructive.
https://www.unz.com/article/israels-biblical-psychopathy/
We're already over half way through fossil fuels needed to process and mine and build solar energy flow harvesting machines. And the down slope of all resources extraction curves is steeper than the up slope, meaning we have a century or so before we're back to the energy supply.
Global population will go back to what it was (~1billion) when the first commercial electric machines were invented some two decades or so BEFORE the first commercially successful internal combustion engine created by Étienne Lenoir around 1860. The first commercially successful electric motors for a lathe and a locomotive were developed in the 1840s
Even if raw material inputs from mines were sufficient, its not possible to build them without high energy density diesel, despite the 2 decade head start electric machines had over diesel machines. So humans face biophysical collapse any way, rendering the question of whether we are living in a simulation or not a non starter: there's no time, Elon, to develop your magic simulation machines!
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/