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

91–100 of 178 posts

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

#91

Post by aswanson »

ajuc wrote: post #89
Nadya wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I can make 2 + 2 = 5 in a simulation I'm not sure you can. Yes you can make a chest with 2 apples contain 5 apples if you put 2 more, but it's impossible (IMHO) to make it consistent. How many apples do you have if you place 2 chests besides 2 other chests and put 1 apple in each? What if you repeat the process 2 times and then another 2 times? Also - when some things in physics aren't intuitive (QM for example, bu…

Sure he can. He can overload the "=" or "+" operator and make them do whatever he wants in that domain.

Taking it further, what if rules and logic, and by extension, math as we know it, is just a construct that is not applicable in the "real" universe. What if, in that "real" space, 7+7=5, or mathematical operations are not possible. What if causality and time dont exist?

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

#92

Post by mamcx »

ajuc wrote: post #90
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,…

If we live in a simulation evolution is still much more probable explanation of the life we see than creationism. With big enough computer and interesting enough set of unerlying rules you can run a simulation to see what happens and there may be life somewhere in the simulated universe. We even do similar experiments [1] right now (but the rules are very simple for now, and the generated life isn't very impressive s…

That only look logical because you assume the mind of the programmer is alike ours. Imagine it to be orders of magnitude superior.

Not only to us. To any other one. To any other computer-alike.

The ultimate compiler.

Why waste to build a compiler when your mind is already the #1 thing ever?

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

#93

Post by ajuc »

aswanson wrote: post #91
ajuc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can make 2 + 2 = 5 in a simulation I'm not sure you can. Yes you can make a chest with 2 apples contain 5 apples if you put 2 more, but it's impossible (IMHO) to make it consistent. How many apples do you have if you place 2 chests besides 2 other chests and put 1 apple in each? What if you repeat the process 2 times and then another 2 times? Also - when some things in physics aren't intuitive (QM for example, bu…

Sure he can. He can overload the "=" or "+" operator and make them do whatever he wants in that domain. Taking it further, what if rules and logic, and by extension, math as we know it, is just a construct that is not applicable in the "real" universe. What if, in that "real" space, 7+7=5, or mathematical operations are not possible. What if causality and time dont exist?

You can change symbols all you want, but when life appears in your simulation they won't care. If they put 2 items and then another 2 items, and 4 items are there - for all they care 2+2=4.

And if sometimes its 5 - they will do what we did with relativity when it turned out velocities doesn't add up like they "should". We haven't changed addition - we changed the equations used in physics.

I guess you could hand-made an intelligent life that is designed never to discover the true math.

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

#94

Post by ajuc »

mamcx wrote: post #92
ajuc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we live in a simulation evolution is still much more probable explanation of the life we see than creationism. With big enough computer and interesting enough set of unerlying rules you can run a simulation to see what happens and there may be life somewhere in the simulated universe. We even do similar experiments [1] right now (but the rules are very simple for now, and the generated life isn't very impressive s…

That only look logical because you assume the mind of the programmer is alike ours. Imagine it to be orders of magnitude superior. Not only to us. To any other one. To any other computer-alike. The ultimate compiler. Why waste to build a compiler when your mind is already the #1 thing ever?

I assume simpler thing is more probable.

Additionaly - if you can design top-down and bottom-up at the same time - it means you already know what will happen. Why even do the simulation in that case?

So, if we're living in a simulation - no reason to bring Gods and ultimate whatevers into this - much more probably we're just their equivalent of the Conway's game of life: https://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

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

#95

Post by alphanumeric0 »

I'm not sure why people insist on assigning agency to this phenomenon. If you wanted, couldn't you invoke the 'many worlds' theory and suggest that our particular universe exhibits the same properties as what you might find in a simulation? This would do away with the need for an agent who is simulating.

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

#96

Post by sctb »

codezero wrote: post #30

The title of the arxiv article is: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation The only time they use the word evidence is in this quote: __ Therefore, there is a sense in which lattice QCD may be viewed as the nascent science of universe simulation, and, as will be argued in the next paragraph, very basic extrapolation of current lattice QCD resource trends into the future suggest that experimental searche…

We've updated the submission title from “Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is a Computer Simulation”, which breaks the guidelines by being editorialized.

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

#97

Post by notduncansmith »

mkstowegnv wrote: post #88
smrtinsert wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a BS in bio as well I learned everything in biology arises from chemistry which arises from physics which can be explained (mostly?) with math. If that isn't abundantly clear on graduation your teachers did you a disservice. You don't have to design anything, it should just show up if its an accurate enough simulation.

You are assuming unlimited computational resources. At some point the computer required is bigger than the universe and exceeds the limits of what our current knowledge of physics and cosmology allows us to speculate about in any kind of meaningful way. I actually believe that a computer with human level intelligence and consciousness will be possible - but only because it won't need to be as messy as real human mind…

If the idea is that our universe is a simulation then its state is, by definition, represented by a finite subset of the state of the simulating universe. In other words, yes, it would be a computer bigger than our universe, in the same way we simulate a universe smaller than ours on one of our computers today.

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

#98

Post by duaneb »

4ad wrote: post #22
astrodust wrote: post #16

Keep in mind that if you wanted to create a simulated universe you can ensure nobody ever finds out. If someone does find out, you can simply fix the problem and revert to a point in time just before the data leading to the discovery was captured. Speaking academically, you might be playing with fire if you probe the outer limits of the universe and we are in a simulation run by some entity concerned with keeping tha…

> you can simply fix the problem and revert to a point in time just before the data leading to the discovery was captured. Only with classical computers, not quantum computers.

Quantum mechanics are only non-deterministic in a single timeline. Going back in time doesn't mean it's any easier to determine the future given the current state, so you can freely "replay" without leaking information.

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

#99

Post by codezero »

sctb wrote: post #96
codezero wrote: post #30

The title of the arxiv article is: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation The only time they use the word evidence is in this quote: __ Therefore, there is a sense in which lattice QCD may be viewed as the nascent science of universe simulation, and, as will be argued in the next paragraph, very basic extrapolation of current lattice QCD resource trends into the future suggest that experimental searche…

We've updated the submission title from “Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is a Computer Simulation”, which breaks the guidelines by being editorialized.

Awesome, thanks!

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

#100

Post by komali2 »

CoryG89 wrote: post #87
komali2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that an AI could be tricked into believing it's environment is the real world when it's only a simulation, just as we could be AIs in a simulation. But this doesn't preclude the possibility of an AI being able to completely inspect/understand the hardware it's running on in the real world, if given the fact that it actually is running on hardware in the real world.

I don't understand - all methods of inspection exist in the same world as the hardware and thus can be spoofed.
Post reply on HN