[flagged]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929588 and marked it off-topic.
Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
201–210 of 285 posts
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#202Immanuel Kant foresaw all this. In his seminal work "Critique of pure reason" he argues that our pure reason, as opposed to the pure mind, always tries to look for the absolute, the absolute of all conditionals. This leads our reason to look beyond empirically observable objects. Those objects that have their origin only in pure reason is what he calls "ideas". Those ideas can be separated into three categories, name…
What Kant said about the world of appearances (phenomena) and the world of objects in themselves (noumena) is also interesting especially for this discussion. He said we can know that there is a noumenal reality - a reality completely independent of our perception - but we just can't say anything meaningful about its character at all, since we can only perceive the world of appearances, or reality as it is subject to…
The problem with Kant's view of an objective outside world is that it is to some degree demonstrably false. Quantum physics shows us that the observed and the observer constitute a system, and the nature of the observer influences the properties of that system as a whole. That influence might be small enough on very large scales to call the observed to some degree "objective" but we don't know that for sure.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#203Something 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…
Of course, there are a few assumptions that must hold true for the simulation theory to be true:
(1) It must be possible to build a computer powerful enough to simulate the universe.
(2) It must be possible to fully simulate a human. This assumes Free Will is a facade (determinism). Also, it's worth noting that if a computer were able to simulate a consciousness as complex as a human, we would have the ability to create the singularity. So most likely, if we are a simulation, it is being run by the singularity.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#204Earlier 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…
> 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... You say "boring", I say "ruthlessly pragmatic." It could be argued, crudely, that the non-verifiable questions are akin to epistomatic masturbation. We are drawn to them, and debating them makes us feel good, but the res…
> but the result is ultimately empty and meaningless
Similar to the end of our galaxy, in which all that we've worked for will literally be sucked into a black hole? And if we escape that, eventually our species will fade away like dust in the wind. I see an over-focus on the tangible same as I see an over-focus on the abstract -- they are both extremes that do actually end up nowhere. If one devotes his/her life to the tangible, but never questions the unknown, did they live? Did they ask themselves "What is love" and awe in its mystery when they found it? Or did they break down love into a series of chemical reactions?
No I would not say pondering the unknown or the unanswerable is empty and meaningless. It often provides the fodder for life's later actions. I do agree though that an overemphasis on it ("head in clouds") fits your epistomatic masturbation analogy.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#205I'm reminded of when I was in school, and took western philosophy to try to get some help with how to think about life and the world. Instead what I got was a bunch of, like, Descartes staring at a candle and trying to figure out if it's real.
My thought then and now has been, it doesn't matter. This existence has certain rules to it. Drink poison and you die, hurt people and go to jail. It's up to us to figure out how to navigate that for a time, and that's all we get. As far as we know.
Even if you knew what was outside what we call reality, even if you knew the form of the simulation- what could be done with that information?
I wonder if this sort of thinking is ultimately propelled by a fear of death or some other impetus compelling people to deny that reality is what it really is. Maybe it's somehow comforting to think that your loved ones don't really die and neither do you, suffering isn't real, it's just qubits being shuffled around in a formal game that lacks higher meaning.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Try this version instead: There is a rocket to be launched for people to upload problems to solve, the rocket travels in such a way that it is able to solve all the problems and come back to tell people the solution. The way it solves the problem is by orbiting around a tiny planet full of computers devoted to compute the problems they are communicated of. The problem seems to be how to locate the observers.
Edited: time dilation and computation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1579.pdf
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be more precise: The absence of ashtrays fluctuating in Morse code and spelling out messages or other clear signs of influence is not evidence of the absence of meddling. We can not realistically know whether or not someone is meddling with a simulation we are in because there are infinite ways they could do so that would be indistinguishable to us from "just the way the universe is". E.g. for what we know quantum…
We're probably a really boring part of the simulation. Like those pre-made Sims houses you never go to but occasionally call on the phone. Jesus Christ was that pizza party.
Frankly, if we are in a Sims type game, I really hope we're in one of those boring parts, or all bets are off.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Kant said about the world of appearances (phenomena) and the world of objects in themselves (noumena) is also interesting especially for this discussion. He said we can know that there is a noumenal reality - a reality completely independent of our perception - but we just can't say anything meaningful about its character at all, since we can only perceive the world of appearances, or reality as it is subject to…
The problem with Kant's view of an objective outside world is that it is to some degree demonstrably false. Quantum physics shows us that the observed and the observer constitute a system, and the nature of the observer influences the properties of that system as a whole. That influence might be small enough on very large scales to call the observed to some degree "objective" but we don't know that for sure.
[deleted]
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#209Immanuel Kant foresaw all this. In his seminal work "Critique of pure reason" he argues that our pure reason, as opposed to the pure mind, always tries to look for the absolute, the absolute of all conditionals. This leads our reason to look beyond empirically observable objects. Those objects that have their origin only in pure reason is what he calls "ideas". Those ideas can be separated into three categories, name…
Ideas can be consistent or inconsistent. Most philosophies don't equate inconsistent with false, but by doing so both true and false becomes an almost meaningless tags. Getting into non Boolean true values is another issue.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Kant said about the world of appearances (phenomena) and the world of objects in themselves (noumena) is also interesting especially for this discussion. He said we can know that there is a noumenal reality - a reality completely independent of our perception - but we just can't say anything meaningful about its character at all, since we can only perceive the world of appearances, or reality as it is subject to…
The problem with Kant's view of an objective outside world is that it is to some degree demonstrably false. Quantum physics shows us that the observed and the observer constitute a system, and the nature of the observer influences the properties of that system as a whole. That influence might be small enough on very large scales to call the observed to some degree "objective" but we don't know that for sure.
If by objective you mean it is an object that exists independently of our perception of it, quantum mechanics, like Kant, also assumes that a reality independent of our perception exists. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific theory at all, because what would it be about?
The idea of superposition prior to measurement is different than an objective reality not existing at all. In quantum mechanics prior to measurement you have kind of a probabilistic terrain of possibilities, one of which is seen upon measurement. Solving the Schrodinger equation gives you this probability distribution in the form of a wave function - if there were no reality prior to measurement, then it would not be meaningful to talk about a probability distribution prior to measurement.
And this is also only one philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations that say that that a determinate reality does exist before measurement but the only way that we can understand that reality is probabilistically.
But all interpretations of quantum mechanics presuppose the existence of reality - whether it be of the determinate or indeterminate sort.