Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#71

Post by mkstowegnv »

IMHO as a biologist infused with awe of the natural world from observation and reading, it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced. But most people who are more focused on, and hungry for, the order created by technology and society in general, find it easy - with occasional cognitive dissonance, my favorite expression of which is the poem "Design" by Robert Frost:

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,

On a white heal-all, holding up a moth

Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth-

Assorted characters of death and blight

Mixed ready to begin the morning right,

Like the ingredients of a witches’ broth--

A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,

And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,

The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?

What brought the kindred spider to that height,

Then steered the white moth thither in the night?

What but design of darkness to appall?--

If design govern in a thing so small.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#72

Post by komali2 »

CoryG89 wrote: post #63
mentos wrote: post #21

What is interesting is if we are the result of an unfathomable number of transistor gates, the consciousness that arises from it would never be able to understand the 'platform' (hardware) that it sits on.. would it? The idea being that you are creating a new dimension that cannot see the dimension that gave rise to it. I feel like no matter what we are in a 'simulation' where another dimension gave rise to ours whet…

Is this really true? What about a self-aware AI? I can imagine an AI that resides on a chip and developed consciousness could conceivably control a camera/robot in the real world and literally inspect and even reverse engineer or repair/improve itself or the hardware it runs on.

True, but in the end their ability to perceive will be limited by the wires to/from those cameras to their hardware, and thus it is still possible that even the external world they thing they're observing, including themselves and their place in it, is also simulated. As in, someone could plug a "fake" camera into the AI and fool it.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#73

Post by Nadya »

ajuc wrote: post #57
aswanson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's to say "real" computing, or "reality" at all, has to adhere to the laws we observe within the simulation? That's like Luigi in Super Mario Brothers saying you can't kick a turtle into a brick in the our world and not expect a gold coin to pop up in front of our faces.

The difference is mathematical, not physical, so it should still hold.

The mathematics depend heavily on physics. If physics outside of our universe differ - the math wouldn't add up.

I can make 2 + 2 = 5 in a simulation. That doesn't mean 2 + 2 = 5 outside of the simulation.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#74

Post by nzp »

zizzles wrote: post #60

Should we perhaps hypothesize the motive of this simulation, if any? Death seems to be a very important focal point: All living organisms are condemned to their aging bodies, eventually begin decaying, then die. Death of the universe is also inevitable, "Heat Death". Then there are other existential issues our feeble brains have to deal with. Then of course, our Earth is replete with suffering around every corner. Pe…

> Death of the universe is also inevitable, "Heat Death".

This is far from settled. Heat death applies only to closed systems. Although it is not unreasonable to assume our universe is a closed system, we simply do not know this to be a fact.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#75

Post by sliken »

komali2 wrote: post #70
lossolo wrote: post #27

I would be surprised if we are not living in simulation. Look at superposition and function collapse in quantum physics, it's equivalent to what we are doing in games today = do not render if player is not watching, save resources. Think about it, look for example at GTA V, what we can achieve today and think about how world looked like 100 years ago. I imagine that in 1000 years from now, simulating world similar to…

I'm not sure I buy into that, because we haven't been able to draw a strict line between what a "player" and "npc" would potentially be.

Players = gods. NPC = rest of us.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#76

Post by 3chelon »

zizzles wrote: post #60

Should we perhaps hypothesize the motive of this simulation, if any? Death seems to be a very important focal point: All living organisms are condemned to their aging bodies, eventually begin decaying, then die. Death of the universe is also inevitable, "Heat Death". Then there are other existential issues our feeble brains have to deal with. Then of course, our Earth is replete with suffering around every corner. Pe…

A cursory reading of most religious texts would certainly indicate a degree of sadism and lack of empathy with our human feelings. Human sacrifice? Plagues? Genocide? As an experiment, they would make sense. Virtual vivisection.

The old God-as-a-Programmer argument certainly has its appeal :)

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#77

Post by Koshkin »

45h34jh53k4j wrote: post #29

Sigh. Why would you dedicate your life to proving this? You will either find you cannot prove it, in which case you have wasted your entire life on falsehood, or you prove it true in which you undo your dilute your existence and everyone you have ever known and loved. Kinda like religion I guess...

This does indeed looks like a modern version of theosophic explanation of why the world exists. The only difference is, previously people were convinced that gods were everywhere and so there must have been one who created our world; and now we, surrounded by computers in all their shapes and forms, are getting suspicious as to what if... You know.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#78

Post by 45h34jh53k4j »

drakonandor wrote: post #56
45h34jh53k4j wrote: post #29

Sigh. Why would you dedicate your life to proving this? You will either find you cannot prove it, in which case you have wasted your entire life on falsehood, or you prove it true in which you undo your dilute your existence and everyone you have ever known and loved. Kinda like religion I guess...

This is a really odd website for you to be on if you're questioning the appeal of intellectual curiosity.

burned! :-X

I guess my issue is not faulting intellectual curiosity in general, but directed curiosity at something with so many existentially negative results.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#79

Post by pmoriarty »

mkstowegnv wrote: post #71

IMHO as a biologist infused with awe of the natural world from observation and reading, it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced. But most people who are more focused on, and hungry for, the order created by technology and society in general, find it easy - with occasional cognitive dissonance,…

A beautiful poem. But who says that the "creators" couldn't be evil, or amoral, or just have different ethics/morals than humans, or who don't think in terms of ethics/morals?

Also, while a human mind might marvel at some level of complexity, there's no reason why a superhuman mind would have to. I mean, imagine a "brain the size of a planet" (like Marvin's in The Hitchhiker's Guide), or one the size of a star, or larger. What could their limits be?

Now imagine a mind not bound by the laws of physics as we know them -- for if they're "outside" the simulation of the universe as we know it, they'd not necessarily be limited by its physical laws. Really, at that point it's anything goes.

Finally, consider that you, or any given human, or all of them, could simply be mistaken about what they think or observe. Just given that potential for error, anything could be possible.

Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)

#80

Post by Vraxx »

comicjk wrote: post #69
lossolo wrote: post #27

I would be surprised if we are not living in simulation. Look at superposition and function collapse in quantum physics, it's equivalent to what we are doing in games today = do not render if player is not watching, save resources. Think about it, look for example at GTA V, what we can achieve today and think about how world looked like 100 years ago. I imagine that in 1000 years from now, simulating world similar to…

This is a common misconception, but superposition has nothing to do with "do not render if the player is not watching." As far as we know, every particle in the universe is interacting with every other (with a light speed delay) and thus "measuring" it (modifying and responding to its wavefunction) at all times. In the two-slit experiment, for example, the wavefunction of a particle moving through a slit interacts wi…

I see the distinction you're making (I think), but I still don't see how that invalidates GP's analogy. Surely "running" a wavefunction is computationally cheaper than re-evaluating the particle's characteristics at every universal frame. Perhaps it's not so much about our own "watching" but rather "do not calculate when irrelevant". My own analogy might be an online map frame like google maps, where tiles outside the viewing box are not loaded. This is because we can tell what needs to be calculated by the bounding box of the viewer without needing all the other finer details. I see it more as a lazy eval.
Post reply on HN