Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 267 posts

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#71

Post by ozzmotik »

sysbin wrote: post #60
kromem wrote: post #52

We are meant to know. If probability can be applied to the idea that we are in a simulation, than it can be applied to what kind of simulation (as the more likely, the more those would be run proportionally). What would be a great way to increase the odds? Recursion. Why this time period? Because if you don't understand your history you are doomed to repeat it. What's the point? Isn't there some really important thin…

> We likely have free will, but it's like playing chess with Google's AI. You may choose which move you make, but the outcome is already determined. Can you explain to me how you made that leap from what you were writing? I don't believe in free will and because I think everything is deterministic. Even if you die in this simulation and had the opportunity to decide what you want next. That's based on all the forces…

i find it interesting that there are people who believe the universe is entirely deterministic in nature. I wouldn't suggest that it necessarily isn't, but more that it's a spectrum. free will is an evolved and developed trait, an aspect of life that got reinforced more and more over time as the vessels of life became more capable to actually exert influence upon the experience of reality itself. but even free will exists in harmony in a system where deterministic events occur. i would go so far as to say that the sum total of reality ideally encompasses all that can or will be in some sense, and with such a vast scope, i certainly can see the idea that reality could have both deterministic and non-deterministic modalities coexisting in harmony. i personally have a theory that the expression of agency is a side effect of the degree of scale of thing that is acting. the more complex and larger a system becomes, the more deterministic requirements are necessary within that system to keep it from just decohering into background noise. but as you go to smaller scales, you have significantly reduced configuration spaces, and as such there is less need for absolute requirements on behavior. i would contest, based on this, that thought and action are expressions of free will in that they are the side effect of a very micro process (namely the signaling of electricity through cells in the brain) and as such, within this framework, are more towards the non deterministic end of the spectrum.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#72

Post by newsbinator »

sysbin wrote: post #65
calf wrote: post #57

I don't know if anyone has come up with this answer, but I would try to argue that there is an ethical obligation for us to force the alien superpowers to shut down the simulation, or else emancipate us as artificial life forms in their reality. I think this is the most dignified answer, and one consistent with post Enlightnment values. It satisfies our ethical obligation to all the other universes the aliens are run…

How did you come to the ethical obligation for the creator to shut down the simulation? I've thought of this before and I agree with the shut it down. So many lives were painful, tortured, experimented on, and in the simulation we exist in. If our simulation every becomes a heaven, well it's the product of a lot of pain & suffering of lives that didn't have any choice. So it seems like the best thing to do is delete…

Could our simulation ever become "heaven", or just seem like heaven, because we're programmed to think of it that way?

In other words, if you create a creature who thinks of being beaten with sticks as heaven, and then you proceed to beat that creature with sticks, are you providing heaven?

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#73

Post by stevenhuang »

tyre wrote: post #10

I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters. A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens. That kind of sounds like…physics? You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't k…

Morbid curiosity is reason enough. If you have the means to find out, would you? If there's hesitation, why?

It's human nature to seek meaning. Knowing that we exist "merely" as simulacrums will greatly affect how we perceive our existence.

I would hope that most would react to this with indifference and continue life as usual, but who can say.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#74

Post by sysbinnnnn »

everyone wrote: post #64
incompatible wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proving that the Universe is a simulation would be proving the existence of gods. Considering how much effort humans have dedicated to this question over the millennia, and the various consequences, and the continuing influence on the lives of the majority of people, I would say it matters.

Gods always seems to pop up in discussions about this topic, which I find glib and annoying. We could prove the existence of the simulation runners. That does not suddenly mean theists were right. They would still be just as wrong as ever, making random assumptions without any evidence or scientific method at all. Lets say we were able to find out that the simulation runner looked and acted exactly like Zeus; that st…

Idk about your proposal of what makes one person right and another not.

Someone can have a starting point of life with the genetics & environment conditions needed for all the events to happen for making the "right" theory.

Another person can have a starting point (different than the other person) and where all the events to prove with the scientific method of what is the "right" theory; matching the other person.

Realistically each person would be effected by forces from previous lives that made them come to the conclusion at the end.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#75

Post by ozzmotik »

incompatible wrote: post #22
tyre wrote: post #10

I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters. A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens. That kind of sounds like…physics? You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't k…

Proving that the Universe is a simulation would be proving the existence of gods. Considering how much effort humans have dedicated to this question over the millennia, and the various consequences, and the continuing influence on the lives of the majority of people, I would say it matters.

i don't think that proving reality to be a simulation would necessitate the proof of any divine beings. all it would really prove is that we are within a simulation that was put into place by something capable of doing such. there is no reason to ascribe "divine" or "holy" traits to those potential creators. granted, i operate under the ideology that there is no distinction between "divinity" and mundane reality itself. i more or less believe that religions were created to establish a schism between those two ideals and to set the divine aside because most people just cannot handle the true power of the infinite potential that lies within their conscious awareness. arbitrary power structures put in place so humans can point to something else and say that that something else is separate from us and better than us, instead of seeing that that something else simply is us— or more appropriately, the sum of us altogether. the way I see it, even if you are just a single lonely gear within a machine, connected within countless others, in being part of the machine, you represent the machine as a whole itself just as much as you represent your perspective as an individual gear.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#76

Post by vl »

mpoteat wrote: post #41
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the rest of the universe is being cheaply simulated, the simulator only computing what we observe. And it isn’t like it has to do anything for what is outside of our observable universe.

It would explain the Fermi paradox.

And Dark Mass and Dark Energy.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#77

Post by Veedrac »

For people actually interested in the topic rather than painfully bad pop-sci reenactments, you should read the simulation paper[1], or, for a less technical introduction, watch the video of Bostrom talking about it[2].

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

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#78

Post by RealityVoid »

airocker wrote: post #42
ako wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If simulations imply gods exist, humans must be gods, as we are doing plenty simulations.

And that god could be an evil monopolist?

Oh, plenty of them. Being a god doesn't imply being good nor interested too much in the entity you are a god to.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#80

Post by vl »

>While there would be considerable value in learning that we live in a computer simulation.

There is no value, what would most of the people do differently if they knew? Nothing.

Also, apart from the questionable idea that we are central to the simulation, there are many possible ways (unknown to us) simulation detection can be handled:

  * Impossible to detect due to well-executed software.
  * Impossible to detect due to counter-detection and counter-measures.
  * They don’t care if simulation is detected.
  * They expect simulation to be detected, and this is the topic of the study.
And at the end of the day, even if you write an article arguing agains the detection, people still will try to do it.
Post reply on HN