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

91–100 of 285 posts

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

#91

Post by cortic »

rl3 wrote: post #53
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. When you're talking about universe-scale simulations, I wouldn't be so confident in asserting what is or isn't possible. Using our present level of scientific knowledge as if it somehow informs us as to the feasibility of universe simulation would be like paleolithic humans discussing the finer points of moder…

"It's likely that time and space are both infinite, which would equate to infinite computational power. " - someone should tell Mojang that Minecraft brakes the universe lol.

Its theoretically infinitely big, as it starts with a seed number and biomes are generated when you interact with them, in a similar way to how this universe acts on quantum levels, kind of.

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

#92

Post by TelmoMenezes »

leni536 wrote: post #26

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

I agree with Karl Popper's idea that falsifiability is required of a scientific theory. On the other hand, science is not the only thing that humans find interesting, and it is not even the only way to acquire knowledge.

For example: "I think therefore I am" is a famous example of knowledge that we can all obtain by non-scientific means. There is also the knowledge of what being in love feels like, or how sardines taste like -- both not obtained through the scientific method.

I guess is possible to only find science interesting and nothing else, but that would make you a very unusual human being.

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

#93

Post by sillysaurus3 »

Swizec wrote: post #81
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many questions in life that are interesting to consider, independent of whether they're falsifiable. It tends to get boring to consider only questions that can be experimentally proven, though different people have different interests. Questions about society and human nature are worth considering, for example, but it's difficult to do controlled experiments. There's some truth to "watch out for wishful thi…

The part where "is this a simulation" becomes an uninteresting question is when you ask "Does it matter?". Would answering the question of whether we're in a simulation have any impact on your behavior, thoughts, and actions? Probably not. So what does it matter? My high school physics teacher once said that, if we ever find something that is outside the universe, then we will obviously be smart enough to call that t…

The part where "is this a simulation" becomes an uninteresting question is when you ask "Does it matter?". Would answering the question of whether we're in a simulation have any impact on your behavior, thoughts, and actions? Probably not. So what does it matter?

About the simulation hypothesis in particular, there are still some interesting conversations to be had. For example, you could go into detail about the properties you might observe if the universe was a simulation. Or you could attack it from the other direction, attempting to predict the kind of technology you'd need in order to create a simulation.

Feynman thought this question important enough to study in detail. "Simulating Physics with Computers": https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/classics/Feynman....

It probably wouldn't change anything to realize that we're in a simulation, but it would open up all sorts of possibilities. We'd be a step closer to defining the reason for existence. We'd be inspired to create our own simulations of other universes, once we know it's possible. Or at least we'd settle the question of whether we, being a simulation, would be able to simulate yet more universes. After all, if we know we're in a simulation, we'd have an idea of the sort of properties necessary to be able to simulate a universe.

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

#94

Post by codebolt »

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?

All I know is that I experience qualia. And I believe that you and all other humans do too, but perhaps some people just aren't aware of it in the same way as I am.

As someone who has a pretty good grasp of both physics and computer science, I am personally convinced that there is no way a circuit board could give rise to the same type of subjective experience of qualia that I am experiencing. I know that's not really an argument, but just because I can't express my conviction in clearer terms doesn't make it any less real to me.

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

#95

Post by Sunset »

setr wrote: post #21
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…

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…

> then we must be heading towards the sane point where we would render a simulation

Unless the purpose of the simulation is to observe a civilization which never achieves simulator capability or chooses not to use such for political reasons but still attains other technologies comparable to theirs in power.

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

#96

Post by okket »

gambiting wrote: post #90
okket wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you enjoy Sci-Fi books about the topic, I would really recommend "Permutation City" by Greg Egan, as it explores exactly this topic.

The novel even has a homepage [0] and a wikipedia page [1]. Looks interesting. Thanks.

[0] http://www.gregegan.net/PERMUTATION/Permutation.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City

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

#97

Post by glaberficken »

Insanity wrote: post #86

I am not sure what to make of the whole universe-is-a-simulation argument. The problem is that, this is as far as I know, not an hypothesis we could ever hope to prove. Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. I highly doubt that there is a higher creature, whether that would be a God of some kind, or a whole civilization outside of our universe that somehow simulates us. But let's fo…

> But let's for entertainment suppose that we are in fact a simulation. Would that not immediatly raise the question "why"? If we are a simulation I would really like to know the reason for being simulated. What do they hope to reach with simulating a life like ours?

They would hope to reach the exact same answers that we do when we simulate things inside our own computers. To understand our own reality better.

Imagine for a second you are that "external" (to us) God or civilization. You simulate this whole other universe (ours) to find out if it's possible that your own reality is a simulation.

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

#98

Post by Sunset »

codebolt wrote: post #23
michaelmrose wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Like I said, I don't accept this physicalist assertion, because it ignores the problem of qualia and the Penrose-Lucas argument (which demonstrates quite clearly how the human mind is able to violate Gödels incompleteness theorems, and therefore is not equivalent to any purely computational system).

>the human mind is able to violate Gödels incompleteness theorems

This is why philosophy majors should lay off the math and biology arguments.

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

#99

Post by coldtea »

leni536 wrote: post #26

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

Popper's concept of "falsifiable" claims as the only means to science has been debunked time and again.

It's not how real science works most of the time.

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

#100

Post by simonh »

Insanity wrote: post #86

I am not sure what to make of the whole universe-is-a-simulation argument. The problem is that, this is as far as I know, not an hypothesis we could ever hope to prove. Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. I highly doubt that there is a higher creature, whether that would be a God of some kind, or a whole civilization outside of our universe that somehow simulates us. But let's fo…

I think it's interesting to speculate what the simulation argument means for religion. The existence of a simulation creator doesn't actually disprove the existence of an ultimate god, after all the beings running the simulation might have a divine creator, so it just pushes the question up a level. But it does pose a problem for imminent religions that believe that god intervenes in the world to cause miracles. How do you know that any given miracle was caused by the ultimate god and not the simulation sysadmins editing the simulation? The whole question of miracles and divine providence becomes deeply problematic.
Post reply on HN