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

71–80 of 285 posts

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

#71

Post by daveguy »

okket wrote: post #60
planetjones wrote: post #24

But couldn't our universe be being simulated by a species far more advanced and discrete to anything the human race has ever encountered? How do we know that another form of life doesn't find everything that we find super complex extremely trivial ?

For all we know, a hypothetical simulation must take part somewhere far below the atomic/quantum level, maybe around the Planck scale. Upwards from that we that we understand a lot of what happens through observation and derived theories. We have no evidence so far that anything or anyone has interfered with the rules above that level in the last 10+ billions years. Therefore, it does not matter if this universe is a…

> For all we know, a hypothetical simulation must take part somewhere far below the atomic/quantum level, maybe around the Planck scale.

And the whole concept of "planck scale" could be simulated. When you get into the realm of "simulated universe" you may as well say "God did it". It requires equal levels of evidence for proof and provides the same level of evidence.

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

#72

Post by szemet »

Gupie wrote: post #38
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…

Why does it need to be a complete simulation? At the extreme, it could be a simulation in which you alone are the only conscious entity. Nothing outside your immediate proximity is simulated.

That's also means they may have to alter our minds sometimes to avoid expensive computations:

For example a bit contrived example: if we try to find the next Mersenne prime (or something similar, computationally hard but easy to check thing (e.g. anything NP complete)), and we use millions of computers to do that, and the simulators do not have it precomputed already - then the simulators either have to compute it too to provide the proper sensory input (the mersenne prime found) or alter our mind not to do this...

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

#73

Post by jcbrand »

MrQuincle wrote: post #46
leni536 wrote: post #26

The statement "we live in a simulation" is not falsifiable. For me this question is simply not interesting.

It might help on an existential level. + In the space of all possible universes it is unlikely that we live in the most probable one, but it is likely that we live in a probable one. + When I feel existentially lost, I'd like to think that if we look deep into math we will see the necessity of our universe's existence. + Our universe is a probable sequence hidden like primes within natural numbers. It exists forever,…

> In the space of all possible universes it is unlikely that we live in the most probable one, but it is likely that we live in a probable one.

I was never great at probability theory, but wouldn't we by definition most likely be living in the most probable universe?

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

#74

Post by psyc »

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…

Your #2 implied that Bostrom himself mixed up the causality, but he did not. In a sense, it's your comment that's mixing up the causality. Just because it's confusing, the way Primer is confusing, doesn't mean it's illogical.

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

#76

Post by pksadiq »

tbabb wrote: post #47
Gupie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it need to be a complete simulation? At the extreme, it could be a simulation in which you alone are the only conscious entity. Nothing outside your immediate proximity is simulated.

And it only needs to be simulated convincingly enough and in enough detail to fool your human mind.

> And it only needs to be simulated convincingly enough and in enough detail to fool your human mind.

If we are inside a simulation, there are too many variables that are beyond our control. What are 'we'? are 'we' 'humans'? Or are 'we' 'programmed' to 'think' so? what is a 'thought'? What is 'mind'? What does it 'mean' by 'fool' 'your' 'human' 'mind'?

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

#78

Post by psyc »

baddox wrote: post #14
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?

Regarding "Basic Thermo", everything we 'know', we subjectively acquired over a tiny period of time, through a game of telephone that refers to the current universe. We're really in no position to comment, in absolutes, on the nature of the parent universes.

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

#79

Post by Gupie »

beefield wrote: post #61
Gupie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it need to be a complete simulation? At the extreme, it could be a simulation in which you alone are the only conscious entity. Nothing outside your immediate proximity is simulated.

I just would like to know how this game is scored and how many lifes I have left...

and what happens when the game is over :)
Post reply on HN