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

151–160 of 285 posts

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

#151

Post by besselheim »

Ntrails wrote: post #115
GuiA wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that your mind is not an isolatable computation - it is influenced by your body, which is in turn influenced by its immediate environment, in turn influenced by the rest of the universe in an ever expanding nested fashion. So if you want to simulate yourself, you have to simulate the universe.

> So if you want to simulate yourself, you have to simulate the universe. This doesn't gel with me. I go back to brain in a jar stuff - I'm just streaming packets of data from nerves and processing them. Whether the "body" I'm responding to is real is pretty hard to guarentee.

But why do you consider the brain (and presumably no more or no less than the brain) to be the vessel for your self, rather than other boundaries of embodiment?

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

#152

Post by naasking »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #110
julianpye wrote: post #105

Regarding AI and God and religion - here is a blog post that I wrote that suggests that being in a simulation actually increases our chances for a religious afterlife. https://medium.com/@photodiary/implementing-religion-in-ai-l...

That's a non-sequitur you have there, because you do not even attempt to explain why there should be a case distinction. To be fair, even Nick Bostrom's original simulation argument is also based on several fairly unfounded and not very plausible assumptions (e.g. what extremely advanced societies would do). Much of the debate seems to be based on speculation.

> To be fair, even Nick Bostrom's original simulation argument is also based on several fairly unfounded and not very plausible assumptions (e.g. what extremely advanced societies would do).

Bostrom doesn't assume that.

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

#153

Post by moron4hire »

cousin_it wrote: post #137
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #89

Something that most people never consider in these discussions: If you accept the hypothesis that mind is generated by a computation, and that this computation is finite, then the same computation that produces "you" can be performed in different places and at different times. The same computation can be performed inside a simulation, inside a simulation inside a simulation and so on. Whatever environment around you…

The meaningful version of the question "am I in a simulation?" is "how likely am I to observe meddling from simulation masters, as opposed to observing business as usual according to the laws of physics?" The only reasonable answer seems to be "very unlikely, because I haven't observed such meddling before". That reasoning depends only on induction, so it works regardless of how many copies of me exist. (BTW, I'm pre…

There is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."

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

#154

Post by StavrosK »

KCFforecast wrote: post #124
StavrosK wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not "quickly". That's your consciousness slowing down to a rate of one day per million years.

You don't solve the problem by yourself, that problem is solved for you on system A, in system A a million years have lapsed but in your life only a few days have passed.

I know, but that's not "quickly". It's just that time passes slowly for you. "Quickly" would be if my friends and family were still alive and the world were recognizable (and there) by the time I got back.

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

#155

Post by naasking »

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?

The actual simulation argument already covers this. It's very accessible [1].

Consider whether, if we could, we would run simulations to test population growth dynamics of early hunter gatherers, or of medieval England suffering from the black death.

> Today, we compare the brain to a computer, and we even go as far as to consider the whole universe might be similated in one.

Except a computer isn't a technology, it's a mathematical construct. As such, it's fully general and not replaceable in the sense you describe.

[1] http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

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

#156

Post by wnkrshm »

I don't understand how rejecting that the state of the universe is fundamentally computable is the same as rejecting the Church-Turing Thesis.

Rejecting the computability of the universe's state is more fundamental: It rejects one of the assumptions of the Church-Turing Thesis, namely that there is a function to compute at all.

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

#157

Post by rimliu »

coldtea wrote: post #99
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.

Interesting. How then does the real science works? Maybe "falsifiable" claims are not the only means, but that's exactly how science works. Otherwise, why build LHC and LIGO?

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

#158

Post by alvarosevilla95 »

moron4hire wrote: post #153
cousin_it wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meaningful version of the question "am I in a simulation?" is "how likely am I to observe meddling from simulation masters, as opposed to observing business as usual according to the laws of physics?" The only reasonable answer seems to be "very unlikely, because I haven't observed such meddling before". That reasoning depends only on induction, so it works regardless of how many copies of me exist. (BTW, I'm pre…

There is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."

I disagree. "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model." means we learned somthing we previously didn't, and we have to update our model. On the other hand, what if acceleration caused by gravity suddenly became 5 m/s^2? this wouldn't be new information, but a fact that directly contradicts previous knowledge.

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

#159

Post by Insanity »

naasking wrote: post #155
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? The actual simulation argument already covers this. It's very accessible [1]. Consider whether, if we could, we would run simulations to test population…

Fair point about the computer being a mathematical construct. But is it the ideal one? (To be honest, I do think that there is a high chance we can model the brain like this).

Thank you for the link!

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

#160

Post by TuringTest »

coldtea wrote: post #99
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.

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

If you define science as "what scientists do", sure.

But if you define science as "knowledge about the world that you can acquire by reason", you need it to be falsifiable; otherwise reason can't tell apart knowledge from invention.

Post reply on HN