31–40 of 285 posts
The statement "we live in a simulation" is not falsifiable. For me this question is simply not interesting.
> [...] the question of whether the universe “really” “is” a simulation has barely come up. Why would it, when there are so many more fruitful things to ask?
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 statement "we live in a simulation" is not falsifiable. For me this question is simply not interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I usually see it is that the descendants will try to replicate humanity in a smaller universe, who will then recursively and eventually instantiate their own replication Not that we're currently being replicated by our actual descendants, but by our higher level's descendents. Eventually ofc hitting the base case where the simulation cannot support further simulation (which might be us, if we never manage to…
> And ofc, if we are a simulation of a higher level's history, and the simulation is correct (to all necessary degrees), then we must be heading towards the sane point where we would render a simulation (unless the approximation fails to support it). Even if a universe-scale simulation is physically possible, why should we expect it to faithfully repeat the same sequence of events that happened in the "outer" univers…
As for verifying the accuracy of the simulation, you only need information about the initial state of the universe (think CMB radiation) and partial information about past states of the universe to reproduce a selected region of universe with certain level of precision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't work though. Even a game of billiards is so complex and so dependent on external influences that a change in state in an electron at the edge of the observable universe can have an observable effect on the outcome. http://www.anecdote.com/2007/10/the-billiard-ball-example/
It doesn't prevent simulating A universe. You can then compute a difference between the simulated past state and real past state based on (partial) information about the past state. Then you go back and iterate again, eventually improving the accuracy of simulation until there is no distinguishable difference between simulated state and real past state. The simulation might end up being not a perfect copy, but it wou…
I don't buy it. Even simulating just the earth and its environs would probably require a computer as big as a galaxy worth of matter. There's just no conceivable payback that could ever be worth the costs.
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" - This is true, so if we WERE in a simulation you would expect some kind of 'fuzziness' to exist in most of the universe, perhaps collapsing into more exact points when important, a kind of 'uncertainty principal' :O.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 no…
I take the simulated Intelligence argument the same way. Suppose you could create a simulation of an intelligence that was indistinguishable from a real one? Well then, you'd have created an artificial intelligence. If such a thing reported that it experienced qualia I'd have no reason to doubt it.
Edit: to put it differently. Suppose I built a model of a Formula 1 engine. I used different materials at a different scale and used a different fuel, but to precise tolerances so that it could actually run. Would it be a Formula 1 engine? No. Would it be an internal combustion engine? Of course, nobody would doubt it.