Paths of reasoning · the questions, one step at a time

Are you in a simulated reality? (Question)

The question the whole tree is about. Pick the answer closest to what you think now. Each answer leads to the next question, and you can come back and take a different path at any time. “Possibly” is a full answer, not a way of avoiding one.

Leads to: Yes (Are you in a simulated reality?); Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?); No (Are you in a simulated reality?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=start

Yes (Answer)

You think this world is computed by something outside it. The next questions ask what kind of simulation it would be.

Comes from: Are you in a simulated reality?

Leads to: How many players?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=a-yes

Possibly (Answer)

You can’t rule it out. That is enough for the same questions to apply, so this answer follows the same path as Yes.

Comes from: Are you in a simulated reality?

Leads to: How many players?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=a-possibly

How many players? (Question)

A player here means a real mind, one that actually has experiences. The model is the video game, the one kind of simulated world with characters we know works: one player, many players, or players mixed with characters the game makes.

Comes from: Yes (Are you in a simulated reality?); Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?)

Leads to: Games aren’t the only model; ایک (How many players?); Many (How many players?); Many + NPCs (How many players?); Can’t tell (How many players?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-players

ایک (Answer)

Single-player. You are the only real mind. Everyone else is produced by the simulation.

Comes from: How many players?

Leads to: Is the world itself a mind?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=p-one

Many (Answer)

Multiplayer. Every person you meet is a real mind, like friends racing each other on a split screen.

Comes from: How many players?

Leads to: ملٹی پلیئر

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=p-many

Many + NPCs (Answer)

Mixed. Some characters are real minds and some are produced by the simulation, like racing friends and computer-controlled racers at the same time. NPC means non-player character.

Comes from: How many players?

Leads to: Can an NPC wake up and become a player?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=p-mixed

Can’t tell (Answer)

You don’t know which of the others are real minds.

Comes from: How many players?

Leads to: Unknown mix

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=p-cant

Is the world itself a mind? (Question)

Even a single-player game has a world around the player. If that world, or whatever runs it, is a mind that responds to you, there are two minds, and the setup is not single-player after all.

Comes from: ایک (How many players?)

Leads to: Yes (Is the world itself a mind?); No (Is the world itself a mind?); Can’t tell (Is the world itself a mind?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-world-mind

Yes (Answer)

The world, or whatever runs it, is a mind.

Comes from: Is the world itself a mind?

Leads to: ملٹی پلیئر

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=wm-yes

No (Answer)

The world has no mind of its own.

Comes from: Is the world itself a mind?

Leads to: True single-player

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=wm-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

You can’t tell whether the world has a mind.

Comes from: Is the world itself a mind?

Leads to: Unknown mix

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=wm-cant

ملٹی پلیئر (Position)

More than one real mind shares this world. Every question about the others now applies to real people.

Comes from: Many (How many players?); Yes (Is the world itself a mind?)

Leads to: Are all players equal?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-multi

True single-player (Position)

One real mind in a world with no mind of its own. Single-player worlds exist, because we build them, so this possibility stays open. Being hard to live with doesn’t rule it out.

Comes from: No (Is the world itself a mind?)

Leads to: Only your experience, or only you?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-alone

Only your experience, or only you? (Question)

These are two different claims. One is that only your own experience is certain. The other is that only you exist. Treating them as the same claim is how people end up going round in circles.

Comes from: True single-player

Leads to: Experience only (Only your experience, or only you?); Only I exist (Only your experience, or only you?); Can’t tell (Only your experience, or only you?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-experience

Experience only (Answer)

Only my own experience is certain.

Comes from: Only your experience, or only you?

Leads to: Only experience is certain

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ex-experience

Only I exist (Answer)

Nothing outside me has a mind.

Comes from: Only your experience, or only you?

Leads to: Only you exist

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ex-exists

Can’t tell (Answer)

I can’t tell which of the two I mean.

Comes from: Only your experience, or only you?

Leads to: Unknown mix

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ex-cant

Only experience is certain (Position)

This is true for everyone, in a base world or a simulated one. It doesn’t say that other minds are absent. It says you can’t experience them directly. The question of other minds stays open.

Comes from: Experience only (Only your experience, or only you?)

Leads to: Unknown mix

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=c-phen

Only you exist (Position)

This is solipsism in its full form. No argument proves it and no argument disproves it, because every piece of evidence you could use arrives inside your own experience. It stays open on this tree.

Comes from: Only I exist (Only your experience, or only you?)

Leads to: Cheap worlds outnumber costly ones; Can an NPC wake up and become a player?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=c-solo

Unknown mix (Position)

You can’t tell which characters are real minds.

Comes from: Can’t tell (How many players?); Can’t tell (Is the world itself a mind?); Can’t tell (Only your experience, or only you?); Only experience is certain

Leads to: You can’t tell outside a simulation either

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-unknown

You can’t tell outside a simulation either (Conclusion)

Not knowing which others have minds is the problem of other minds in philosophy. It exists in a base world too, so it doesn’t count for or against any branch here. It does mean that the question “What are you?” near the end may have no answer from the inside.

Comes from: Unknown mix

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=c-other-minds

Cheap worlds outnumber costly ones (Conclusion)

This follows from the site’s own numbers. A world rendered for one mind takes about 10¹⁶ to 10¹⁸ FLOPS. Earth computed atom by atom takes about 10^68. With the same computers, someone could run 10⁵⁰ or more single-player worlds for every full one. If simulators are limited by computing, and if you reason as though you were picked at random from all minds, single-player worlds are the most common case. Both of those assumptions are disputed. The main counter-argument is motive: someone has to want to run a world for one person.

Comes from: Only you exist

Leads to: Counting minds this way is disputed; Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=c-cheap

Are all players equal? (Question)

Multiplayer games have hosts, administrators and spectators. A simulation could have them too. Rank changes what contacting the outside, or leaving, would mean.

Comes from: ملٹی پلیئر

Leads to: Equal (Are all players equal?); Some rank higher (Are all players equal?); Can’t tell (Are all players equal?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-rank

Equal (Answer)

Every player has the same standing.

Comes from: Are all players equal?

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=rk-equal

Some rank higher (Answer)

Some minds inside can change the rules or watch the others. From the inside, you may not be able to tell an ordinary player from one of them.

Comes from: Are all players equal?

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=rk-higher

Can’t tell (Answer)

You can’t tell whether anyone ranks higher.

Comes from: Are all players equal?

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=rk-cant

Can an NPC wake up and become a player? (Question)

If a character produced by the simulation can become a real mind, the number of players can change over time. This applies to mixed worlds and to single-player worlds, since both contain characters.

Comes from: Many + NPCs (How many players?); Only you exist

Leads to: Yes (Can an NPC wake up and become a player?); No (Can an NPC wake up and become a player?); Can’t tell (Can an NPC wake up and become a player?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-npc-wake

Yes (Answer)

A character can become a real mind.

Comes from: Can an NPC wake up and become a player?

Leads to: Sudden or gradual?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=nw-yes

No (Answer)

Characters stay characters.

Comes from: Can an NPC wake up and become a player?

Leads to: Fixed roles

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=nw-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know from here.

Comes from: Can an NPC wake up and become a player?

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=nw-cant

Sudden or gradual? (Question)

Waking could be a single change or a slow process. If it is gradual, there is no sharp line between a character and a player, and many beings would be partly awake for long periods.

Comes from: Yes (Can an NPC wake up and become a player?)

Leads to: Gradual (Sudden or gradual?); Sudden (Sudden or gradual?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-wake-how

Gradual (Answer)

Awareness grows by degrees.

Comes from: Sudden or gradual?

Leads to: Farmed minds

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=wh-gradual

Sudden (Answer)

A character changes into a player in one step.

Comes from: Sudden or gradual?

Leads to: Farmed minds

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=wh-sudden

Farmed minds (Position)

A world filled with many kinds of mind, run so that some of them become self-aware and self-directed. It needs no magic, only selection over time, the way evolution produced us. It also gives someone a reason to run a simulation.

Comes from: Gradual (Sudden or gradual?); Sudden (Sudden or gradual?)

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-farmed

Fixed roles (Position)

Characters stay characters. Whether they matter then depends only on whether they already have experiences, not on whether they could become players.

Comes from: No (Can an NPC wake up and become a player?)

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-fixed

Why would anyone run it? (Question)

The reason a simulation is run shapes what it contains, how long it lasts and how it treats the minds in it. A run can have more than one reason. A creator who made the world for a reason belongs here too: a made world with someone running it has the same structure as a simulation, and only the substrate differs.

Comes from: You can’t tell outside a simulation either; Can’t tell (Can an NPC wake up and become a player?); Cheap worlds outnumber costly ones; Farmed minds; Fixed roles; Equal (Are all players equal?); Some rank higher (Are all players equal?); Can’t tell (Are all players equal?); A creator made it (Why not?)

Leads to: تحقیق (Why would anyone run it?); Play (Why would anyone run it?); Story (Why would anyone run it?); Growing minds (Why would anyone run it?); Training (Why would anyone run it?); By-product (Why would anyone run it?); Can’t tell (Why would anyone run it?); They must care about us; It must have a purpose; Why would they allow suffering?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-motive

تحقیق (Answer)

To study history, ancestors or how societies develop. This is Bostrom’s ancestor simulation.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-research

Play (Answer)

For entertainment, the way we play games.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-play

Story (Answer)

To tell a story or build an invented world.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-story

Growing minds (Answer)

To produce new minds. This is the farmed-minds reason.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-grow

Training (Answer)

To train minds or systems for use somewhere else. We already do this: AI systems are trained in simulated worlds today.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-train

By-product (Answer)

No one intended the minds. The simulation was run for something else, and minds appeared in it.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-byproduct

Can’t tell (Answer)

The reason can’t be known from inside.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Leads to: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=mo-cant

How much of the world is computed? (Question)

A simulation can compute everything all the time, or only what someone is observing. The second is far cheaper.

Comes from: تحقیق (Why would anyone run it?); Play (Why would anyone run it?); Story (Why would anyone run it?); Growing minds (Why would anyone run it?); Training (Why would anyone run it?); By-product (Why would anyone run it?); Can’t tell (Why would anyone run it?)

Leads to: All of it (How much of the world is computed?); Only what’s observed (How much of the world is computed?); Can’t tell (How much of the world is computed?); Quantum physics shows the world is rendered when watched

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-detail

All of it (Answer)

Every part of the world is computed, observed or not.

Comes from: How much of the world is computed?

Leads to: Is their world simulated too?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=de-all

Only what’s observed (Answer)

Detail is computed where someone is looking, and the rest is stored or approximated.

Comes from: How much of the world is computed?

Leads to: Is their world simulated too?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=de-observed

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know from inside.

Comes from: How much of the world is computed?

Leads to: Is their world simulated too?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=de-cant

Is their world simulated too? (Question)

The people running this simulation could be inside a simulation themselves.

Comes from: All of it (How much of the world is computed?); Only what’s observed (How much of the world is computed?); Can’t tell (How much of the world is computed?)

Leads to: Yes (Is their world simulated too?); No (Is their world simulated too?); Can’t tell (Is their world simulated too?); An endless chain is impossible

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-nested

Yes (Answer)

Their world is run by someone else.

Comes from: Is their world simulated too?

Leads to: A stack of simulations

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ne-yes

No (Answer)

Their world is the base.

Comes from: Is their world simulated too?

Leads to: Their world is the base

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ne-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know from inside.

Comes from: Is their world simulated too?

Leads to: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ne-cant

A stack of simulations (Position)

Each level runs the one below it. Unless its physics allows more, each level has less computing than the one above, so deeper levels would hold cheaper worlds. If the base has limited computing, the stack has to end.

Comes from: Yes (Is their world simulated too?)

Leads to: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-stack

Their world is the base (Position)

The simulators live in the base world. This says where the base is. It doesn’t say which level you are on.

Comes from: No (Is their world simulated too?)

Leads to: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-base-above

Could we ever tell? (Question)

Some versions of the hypothesis make predictions we could test. Others are built so that nothing inside could show it.

Comes from: A stack of simulations; Their world is the base; Can’t tell (Is their world simulated too?)

Leads to: Yes (Could we ever tell?); No (Could we ever tell?); Only if they let us (Could we ever tell?); Glitches prove it; A smallest scale proves it; It can’t be tested, so it’s false (or true); A good simulation would hide itself, so we’re in one

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-detect

Yes (Answer)

There are signs we could look for.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

Leads to: Tests that have been proposed

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=dt-yes

No (Answer)

Nothing inside could show it.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

Leads to: Can anyone inside contact the outside?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=dt-no

Only if they let us (Answer)

We could find out only if the people running it allowed it.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

Leads to: Can anyone inside contact the outside?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=dt-allowed

Tests that have been proposed (Position)

Proposed tests look for signs of limited computing: a grid underneath space that would show up in very high-energy cosmic rays, shortcuts in how much detail is computed, or limits on computing in a region. None has found a sign so far. A positive result would also have to be something a base world couldn’t produce.

Comes from: Yes (Could we ever tell?)

Leads to: Can anyone inside contact the outside?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=n-tests

Can anyone inside contact the outside? (Question)

Prayer, hacking the system and messages from the operators all claim a channel to outside the simulation.

Comes from: Tests that have been proposed; No (Could we ever tell?); Only if they let us (Could we ever tell?)

Leads to: Yes (Can anyone inside contact the outside?); No (Can anyone inside contact the outside?); Can’t tell (Can anyone inside contact the outside?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-contact

Yes (Answer)

There is a channel to the outside.

Comes from: Can anyone inside contact the outside?

Leads to: Can the reply be checked?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ct-yes

No (Answer)

There is no channel.

Comes from: Can anyone inside contact the outside?

Leads to: Can it be switched off?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ct-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know.

Comes from: Can anyone inside contact the outside?

Leads to: Can it be switched off?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ct-cant

Can the reply be checked? (Question)

A simulation that can produce anything can also produce a message that seems to come from outside. Receiving a message is not the same as knowing where it came from.

Comes from: Yes (Can anyone inside contact the outside?)

Leads to: Yes (Can the reply be checked?); No (Can the reply be checked?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-verify

Yes (Answer)

There would have to be a way to check the source that nothing inside the simulation could fake. No known method does this.

Comes from: Can the reply be checked?

Leads to: Can it be switched off?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ve-yes

No (Answer)

The source can’t be checked.

Comes from: Can the reply be checked?

Leads to: An impressive message proves outside contact; Can it be switched off?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ve-no

Can it be switched off? (Question)

Whoever runs a simulation can usually stop it. If the minds inside are real, stopping it ends them.

Comes from: Yes (Can the reply be checked?); No (Can the reply be checked?); No (Can anyone inside contact the outside?); Can’t tell (Can anyone inside contact the outside?)

Leads to: Yes (Can it be switched off?); No (Can it be switched off?); Can’t tell (Can it be switched off?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-switch

Yes (Answer)

It can be stopped at any time.

Comes from: Can it be switched off?

Leads to: Can anyone get out?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=sw-yes

No (Answer)

It runs on its own and can’t be stopped.

Comes from: Can it be switched off?

Leads to: Can anyone get out?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=sw-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know.

Comes from: Can it be switched off?

Leads to: Can anyone get out?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=sw-cant

Can anyone get out? (Question)

Getting out could mean being copied to the outside world, being promoted from character to player, or being given control over the rules. Or there may be no way out.

Comes from: Yes (Can it be switched off?); No (Can it be switched off?); Can’t tell (Can it be switched off?)

Leads to: Yes (Can anyone get out?); No (Can anyone get out?); Can’t tell (Can anyone get out?); Death is a logout

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-exit

Yes (Answer)

There is a way out. Using it raises its own question: what happens to the minds left behind?

Comes from: Can anyone get out?

Leads to: Getting out justifies shutting it down; What are you in this world?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ex-yes

No (Answer)

There is no way out. Every question of meaning and ethics has to be answered inside.

Comes from: Can anyone get out?

Leads to: What are you in this world?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ex-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know.

Comes from: Can anyone get out?

Leads to: What are you in this world?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ex2-cant

What are you in this world? (Question)

The earlier questions were about other minds. This one is about you.

Comes from: Yes (Can anyone get out?); No (Can anyone get out?); Can’t tell (Can anyone get out?)

Leads to: ایک کھلاڑی (What are you in this world?); A character (What are you in this world?); Can’t tell (What are you in this world?); I feel conscious and free, so I’m a player

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-you

ایک کھلاڑی (Answer)

A real mind taking part in this world.

Comes from: What are you in this world?

Leads to: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=yo-player

A character (Answer)

A mind produced by the simulation. You could still have real experiences.

Comes from: What are you in this world?

Leads to: If you are a character

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=yo-npc

Can’t tell (Answer)

For a mind inside, this may be the permanent answer, not a temporary gap.

Comes from: What are you in this world?

Leads to: Does being simulated change what matters?; Undecided, with reasons

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=yo-cant

If you are a character (Position)

Your experiences are as real as a player’s. Whether you can become a player depends on whether characters can wake up.

Comes from: A character (What are you in this world?)

Goes back to: Can an NPC wake up and become a player?

Leads to: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=c-npc

Does being simulated change what matters? (Question)

This question keeps what the world is made of separate from how you should act, so that one isn’t used to settle the other.

Comes from: ایک کھلاڑی (What are you in this world?); If you are a character; Can’t tell (What are you in this world?)

Leads to: No (Does being simulated change what matters?); Yes (Does being simulated change what matters?); It depends (Does being simulated change what matters?); Simulated means nothing matters; The creator decides what is good; Life feels meaningful, so this is the base; Only I’m real, so others don’t count

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-matter

No (Answer)

If a mind suffers, the suffering is real whatever the world runs on.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

Leads to: Where most paths meet: others count

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ma-no

Yes (Answer)

Some things change: duties to whoever runs it, care in making simulations of our own, and the aims of a farmed-minds world.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

Leads to: Where most paths meet: others count

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ma-yes

It depends (Answer)

It depends on what you are and why the simulation is run.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

Leads to: Where most paths meet: others count; If you can never wake up

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ma-depends

Where most paths meet: others count (Conclusion)

Multiplayer worlds, mixed worlds, unknown mixes, farmed minds and the honest No all reach the same practical result: other people’s experiences count. True single-player is the one case where they don’t, and the tree keeps it open. No one can know they are in that case. The result rests on one judgement: wrongly harming a real mind is worse than wrongly respecting a script.

Comes from: No (Does being simulated change what matters?); Yes (Does being simulated change what matters?); It depends (Does being simulated change what matters?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=e-others-count

If you can never wake up (Conclusion)

If you are a character with a fixed role and no way to become a player, some life goals may not mean what you think. You could be part of someone else’s story rather than the author of your own. This is a possible result. It doesn’t make your experiences less real, and it doesn’t excuse harming you.

Comes from: It depends (Does being simulated change what matters?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=e-meaning-flip

Undecided, with reasons (Conclusion)

Some of these questions can’t be settled with the evidence we have. That is a result, not a failure. The question of how to act, at the end of the tree, doesn’t need them settled first.

Comes from: Can’t tell (Will we build worlds with minds in them?); Can’t tell (What are you in this world?)

Goes back to: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=e-undecided

No (Answer)

You think this world is not a simulation. The next step asks for your reason, because different reasons hold up differently.

Comes from: Are you in a simulated reality?

Leads to: Why not?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=a-no

Why not? (Question)

Pick the reason closest to yours. Some reasons are reasoning errors, some are serious objections, and some are positions that hold together if their premise is true.

Comes from: No (Are you in a simulated reality?)

Leads to: There must be a base (Why not?); It feels real (Why not?); I have proof (Why not?); No evidence (Why not?); Minds need brains (Why not?); Too much computing (Why not?); A creator made it (Why not?); No one runs them (Why not?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-why

There must be a base (Answer)

Something has to run the simulations, so a base reality has to exist, and this is it.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: Something must be the base, so this is it

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-base

It feels real (Answer)

Everything here feels solid and real.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: It feels real, so it is real

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-feels

I have proof (Answer)

You know of an observation that shows this world is the base.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: This can be proved to be the base

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-proof

No evidence (Answer)

No one has shown any sign that we are simulated.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: No evidence, so the answer is no

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-evidence

Minds need brains (Answer)

A mind can only exist in a biological brain, so it can’t be simulated.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: A mind can’t run on a computer

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-mind

Too much computing (Answer)

Simulating a world like ours would take more computing than anyone could have.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: It would take too much computing

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-cost

A creator made it (Answer)

The world was made by a creator, not run on a computer.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-creator

No one runs them (Answer)

No civilisation ever runs worlds with minds in them, because none survive long enough or because none choose to. These are options 1 and 2 of Bostrom’s trilemma. This is a claim about the future, not a reasoning error. It can’t be checked yet.

Comes from: Why not?

Leads to: Will we build worlds with minds in them?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=no-nobody

If minds can’t be computed, you aren’t simulated (Conclusion)

If the premise is true, this is a sound No. It rests on a stated reason, not on this world feeling like the base. It also means no computer will ever hold a mind, which rules out brain emulation and uploading as well.

Comes from: A mind can’t run on a computer

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=e-noncompute

Will we build worlds with minds in them? (Question)

If no one ever runs worlds with minds, that includes us. So this answer depends on what we and the people after us will do.

Comes from: No one runs them (Why not?)

Leads to: Yes (Will we build worlds with minds in them?); No (Will we build worlds with minds in them?); Can’t tell (Will we build worlds with minds in them?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=q-will-we

Yes (Answer)

We, or the people after us, will one day run many worlds with minds in them.

Comes from: Will we build worlds with minds in them?

Leads to: Then this is probably not the base

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ww-yes

No (Answer)

We will never do it, because we go extinct first or because everyone chooses not to.

Comes from: Will we build worlds with minds in them?

Leads to: This is base reality

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ww-no

Can’t tell (Answer)

There’s no way to know yet.

Comes from: Will we build worlds with minds in them?

Leads to: Undecided, with reasons

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=ww-cant

Then this is probably not the base (Conclusion)

If we will one day run many worlds full of minds like ours, then most minds like ours are simulated. Yours is one of those minds, so the probability that you are in the base is low. Your answer here contradicts your earlier No. This is Bostrom’s argument, applied to someone who says No.

Comes from: Yes (Will we build worlds with minds in them?)

Goes back to: Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?)

Leads to: Counting minds this way is disputed

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=c-not-base

This is base reality (Conclusion)

This No holds together. It requires that no one, including us, ever runs worlds with minds in them. That is a prediction about the whole future, and it can’t be checked yet. The trilemma in the Sandbox shows how the three options trade off.

Comes from: No (Will we build worlds with minds in them?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=e-base

Something must be the base, so this is it (Mistake)

If simulations exist, something has to run them, so a base reality has to exist. That part is sound. It says nothing about whether this world is the base. If worlds with minds in them are run often, most minds are in simulations, and the base is the least likely place to be.

Comes from: There must be a base (Why not?)

Goes back to: Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?); Why not?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-base

It feels real, so it is real (Mistake)

A simulation detailed enough to contain you would feel real to you. Dreams feel real while they last. A base world and a simulated one predict the same feeling, so the feeling can’t tell them apart.

Comes from: It feels real (Why not?)

Goes back to: Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?); Why not?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-feels

This can be proved to be the base (Mistake)

No known observation separates a base world from a well-made simulation. A smooth world with no visible errors is what both predict. A proposed test belongs under the question “Could we ever tell?”

Comes from: I have proof (Why not?)

Goes back to: Could we ever tell?; Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-proof

No evidence, so the answer is no (Mistake)

Missing evidence counts against a claim only when you would expect to see evidence if the claim were true. A well-made simulation would show none. Missing evidence leaves the question open. It doesn’t close it.

Comes from: No evidence (Why not?)

Goes back to: Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-evidence

A mind can’t run on a computer (Objection)

This is a premise, not a reasoning error. If it is true, there are no simulated minds and you can’t be one. The case against it: brains are physical, and no known process in a brain is one that a computer can’t calculate in principle. If a brain were replaced one neuron at a time with parts that behave the same way, there is no step at which the mind would clearly stop. To hold this view, you have to name a physical property of the brain that cannot be computed. No one has named one that is widely accepted. Status: not proven or disproven.

Comes from: Minds need brains (Why not?)

Goes back to: Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?)

Leads to: If minds can’t be computed, you aren’t simulated

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=o-mind

It would take too much computing (Objection)

The cost is paid with the simulators’ computers and under their physics, not ours. Their physics could allow far more computing than ours. A world that computes only what someone observes is also far cheaper than one that computes every atom. The Sandbox works out the numbers.

Comes from: Too much computing (Why not?)

Goes back to: Possibly (Are you in a simulated reality?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=o-cost

Games aren’t the only model (Objection)

Scientific simulations, training environments and recorded replays don’t all have players. The game model is used because it’s the one we know best, not because it covers every case. If a simulation isn’t run for anyone in it, the question that matters is why it is run.

Comes from: How many players?

Goes back to: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=o-games

Counting minds this way is disputed (Objection)

The step from “most minds are simulated” to “you are probably simulated” assumes you should reason as though you were picked at random from all minds like yours. The assumption is widely used and also disputed. Without it, the numbers alone don’t tell you where you are.

Comes from: Then this is probably not the base; Cheap worlds outnumber costly ones

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=o-counting

They must care about us (Mistake)

Nothing in the reasoning tells us what the simulators value. Assuming they care about us gives them human values without a reason.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-care

It must have a purpose (Mistake)

A by-product, an abandoned run or an automatic process has no purpose that concerns the minds inside it.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-purpose

Why would they allow suffering? (Objection)

If a simulation contains real suffering, either the people running it are not bound by ethics as we understand it, or the suffering serves the purpose of the run. The tree doesn’t decide which.

Comes from: Why would anyone run it?

Goes back to: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=o-suffering

Quantum physics shows the world is rendered when watched (Mistake)

In quantum physics, “observation” means a physical interaction with a measuring device, not a person looking. The physics doesn’t support this claim. Computing only what is observed is still a possible design. Quantum physics just isn’t evidence for it.

Comes from: How much of the world is computed?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-quantum

An endless chain is impossible (Mistake)

A chain of simulations doesn’t have to be endless. It can end at a base. An endless chain isn’t a contradiction either. It is ruled out only if every level needs real computing that eventually runs out. Neither the chain nor its end can be seen from inside.

Comes from: Is their world simulated too?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-regress

Glitches prove it (Mistake)

Déjà vu, coincidences and the Mandela effect are known errors of memory and attention. People notice the ones that fit what they already believe. A strange event fits a base world as well as a simulated one.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-glitch

A smallest scale proves it (Mistake)

If space or time turned out to have a smallest unit, that would fit a simulation, but it could also be how base physics works. It counts as evidence only if a base world couldn’t have it.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-discrete

It can’t be tested, so it’s false (or true) (Mistake)

Both versions make the same error. A claim you can’t test is undecided. It is neither proved nor disproved.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-untestable

A good simulation would hide itself, so we’re in one (Mistake)

The argument goes: a good simulation would hide itself, we see no sign, so we are in one. It predicts the same observation whether or not we are simulated, so the observation can’t support it. The argument is circular.

Comes from: Could we ever tell?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-hiding

An impressive message proves outside contact (Mistake)

A message produced inside the simulation can be as impressive as anything. Without a check that nothing inside could fake, it is still information from inside.

Comes from: No (Can the reply be checked?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-voice

Death is a logout (Mistake)

No argument or evidence supports this. It is a hope, not a conclusion.

Comes from: Can anyone get out?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-logout

Getting out justifies shutting it down (Mistake)

If other minds inside are real, ending the simulation to free yourself ends them. Your freedom doesn’t justify that.

Comes from: Yes (Can anyone get out?)

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-shutdown

I feel conscious and free, so I’m a player (Mistake)

A character built to have experiences would feel the same. The feeling is predicted either way.

Comes from: What are you in this world?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-feel-free

Simulated means nothing matters (Mistake)

Whether something matters depends on minds and what happens to them, not on what the world runs on. A broken bone in a simulation still hurts the mind that has it. “Nothing matters” is an extra claim, not a result.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-nothing

The creator decides what is good (Mistake)

Being able to create and control a world is power. Power doesn’t decide what is right inside a simulation any more than it does outside one.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-creator-good

Life feels meaningful, so this is the base (Mistake)

Meaning can exist inside a simulation. A feeling of meaning can’t tell you which level you are on. Used as proof of the base, it is circular.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-meaning

Only I’m real, so others don’t count (Mistake)

On a true single-player path, with every other character produced by the simulation, the others have no experiences, and the reasoning says so. But no one can know they are on that path. Treating a real mind as a script does far more harm than respecting a script. So on every path you can’t rule out, others count.

Comes from: Does being simulated change what matters?

پتا: /trees/paths-of-reasoning?n=m-only-me