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

Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 285 posts

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#11

Post by michaelmrose »

codebolt wrote: post #3
powera wrote: post #2

I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it". Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.

To me, even if we ignore the God debate, there are some big problems with theories like these because they irreverently presuppose that everything including the human mind can be reduced to mechanical/mathematical principles. This ignores things like the problem of qualia (which I'm subjectively convinced is real), and the Penrose-Lucas argument for why there is a non-computational component to human consciousness.

The universe is composed of particles, waves, or strings or whatever you prefer math describes each constituent part so why does math not describe the whole?

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#12

Post by sebleon »

powera wrote: post #2

I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it". Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.

*disclaimer: no explanatory power, just food for thought

'cogito, ergo sum'

We could very well be 'real' consciousnesses being fed artificial sensory data. While we would exist outside the simulation, our perception of objective reality might be fake.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#13

Post by RyanCavanaugh »

powera wrote: post #2

I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it". Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.

Let's say that for a given set of physical laws, you get some "computational power" P, which characterizes how hard it is do to computation using those laws. You could imagine a universe with lower P than ours, where light was much slower, or the only workable transistor had a switching time on the order of seconds.

Given a universe with computational power P, you can simulate a "universe" of something like P * 10^-100. For example, a Minecraft world is a universe with different physical laws, in which you could perform even slower and worse simulations, and you can make "turtles all the way down" at lower and lower P.

The claim that our universe is not simulated, then, is nearly equal to the claim that the physical laws we have is the absolute highest P that could ever exist. Since we know we can simulate universes of much lower P than ours, we ought to have very good reason to assert that there is no universe of much higher P than ours. Given a finite speed of light in our universe, yet nonlocal effects (Bell inequalities) which appear to take instantaneous effect, we could perhaps fathom a universe of higher P created by having a method of communication which occurred instantaneously. Add to this more dimensions in time and space, etc... literally nothing is off the table for a "smarter" universe to be conceived of, because the containing universe's physical laws need bear no resemblance to our own.

Barring a literal divine intervention, though, it's all completely unfalsifiable, but I think it's more nuanced than "God did it".

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#14

Post by baddox »

snowwrestler wrote: post #6

Here's what I wrote in a comment here last year about the Bostrom simulation argument specifically: The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws. 1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistic…

> But it is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system--that's basic thermodynamics

I haven't heard quite that argument before. Couldn't it just be simulated slower than real-time? Or is memory the issue?

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#16

Post by yoklov »

snowwrestler wrote: post #6

Here's what I wrote in a comment here last year about the Bostrom simulation argument specifically: The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws. 1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistic…

I think point 2 is often handled by assuming everything that happens outside of our solar system (or wherever you choose to draw the line) is 'faked' in such a way that we couldn't tell.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#17

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

TekMol wrote: post #5
codebolt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, even if we ignore the God debate, there are some big problems with theories like these because they irreverently presuppose that everything including the human mind can be reduced to mechanical/mathematical principles. This ignores things like the problem of qualia (which I'm subjectively convinced is real), and the Penrose-Lucas argument for why there is a non-computational component to human consciousness.

I don't experience any qualia. And I don't believe you that you do. Do you have any arguments that could convince me to believe you?

Why do I need to convince you I experience qualia?

You're welcome to propose models that omit it, but they'll fail basic logic to me: they fail to explain the only experiment Im absolutely sure of the results of and which is continually running while I'm existing. Im less sure gravity exists than that qualia does for me.

It's entirely possible no one else does, or that they experience a different qualia. It's also not possible to prove that you do to others.

I see no point in trying to convince non-qualia-experiencing entities that I experience it, because they fundamentally don't have experiences and I don't think it's possible to bridge that gap.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#18

Post by AnonNo15 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #6

Here's what I wrote in a comment here last year about the Bostrom simulation argument specifically: The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws. 1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistic…

Regarding you second point - you don't need to simulate the Universe at 1:1 scale to reliably replicate the past states of a certain region. For example, Earth itself can be simulated at full resolution only within a thin shell centered on it's surface, say +/-10 km from geoid. There are no observers at the core, so a simplified model would do, as long as plate tectonics is reproduced accurately enough.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#19

Post by baddox »

AnonNo15 wrote: post #7

I had thought about this idea and came to the conclusion that if the full universe simulation is ever possible, it is highly likely that we are living in one right now. And the only way to prove it is possible, is to attempt to simulate one.

Your first sentence is precisely Bostrom's argument, which is pretty much the canonical argument for the simulation hypothesis.
Post reply on HN