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

91–100 of 267 posts

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

#91

Post by pixelpoet »

ako wrote: post #37
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.

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

I develop physically-based renderers, the output of which is easily mistaken for photographs. I don't presume myself to be a god of course, but it does make me think... what if you piece together enough specialists for this that and the other aspect of a simulation, and run them on a freakishly powerful computer, with a sort of genetic algorithm simulating virtual beings...

There's a great short story by Greg Egan about this kind of thing, and even with this "spoiler" context it's still very much worth reading: http://ttapress.com/CrystalNights.pdf

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

#92

Post by grenoire »

avz wrote: post #68
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…

> A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic Why would the simulation be entirely deterministic? The simulations humans run often are not, see e.g. Monte Carlo simulations [1]. Also, the laws of physics as we presently know them are not completely deterministic either [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method [2…

Monte Carlo simulations' goal is to randomise the inputs, not the process. In this hypothetical simulation of life, it is the process that seems deterministic, and not the inputs.

For Monte Carlo simulations, we want to be sure that we're not imparting the biases we have on the model into the execution of the process itself.

As for quantum mechanics, it is only with out current understanding that we believe the process is non-deterministic. We'll see if that holds in a century.

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

#93

Post by andreareina »

karmakaze wrote: post #62

> In 2003, the philosopher Nick Bostrom made an ingenious argument that we might be living in a computer simulation [...] This part isn't novel as it was written about in Simulacron-3 (1964) and one of my fave films[0] (excuse the graphics, good story). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor (1999)

Coincidentally I just rewatched it last night. It's held up pretty well.

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

#94

Post by thecupisblue »

sysbinnnnn wrote: post #74
everyone wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Re…

Exactly. If someone is physics PhD and makes the same conclusion as a random person, it's still the same abstraction, just that ones shows an implementation in physics while other in human words.

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

#95

Post by thecupisblue »

paulsutter wrote: post #32
rland wrote: post #23

3 possibilities: - We are not living in a simulation. - We are living in a simulation, but it is a "perfect" simulation. There is no way to determine if we are in a simulation from within the simluation. - We are living in a simulation, and it is not perfect. It could be exploited from within itself. By far the most likely is 1 or 2, based on what we've observed, imho.

While 3 is unlikely, thanks for posting it. It’s the first reason I’ve ever heard that the simulation question could matter at all. As a person who prefers high-variance outcomes, that could be cool

Then follow the white rabbit and look around, there are many exploits. Your consciousness influences wave collapse (with a weight tho), that's a huge attack vector. Von Neumann had a good theory on this one.

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

#96

Post by faissaloo »

I find this question extremely nonsensical, of course we live in a simulation, not necessarily a 'computer' simulation but a simulation nonetheless. It's not like we simply 'exist', there is quite obviously something supporting our continued existence or our existence would make no sense.

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

#97

Post by faissaloo »

everyone wrote: post #56

"The details are complex, but the basic idea is simple: Some of today’s computer simulations of our cosmos produce distinctive anomalies — for example, there are telltale glitches in the behavior of simulated cosmic rays." I would like to know more of the details.. But, surely we can't use knowledge of physics and computer-science from simulations we run in our simulated universe, to make predictions about the simula…

Agreed, our reality has limits, we would not be able to replicate our own reality within an already limited reality.

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

#98

Post by faissaloo »

sysbin wrote: post #16

I'm a hard determinist and so I view everything very much as a simulation. Responsibility for everything follows the chain of events back to whatever started everything. You can't even blame the creator of this "simulation" if such a creator exists because you would have to continuously follow the chain of events again with the creator. I do like to theorize there are many chains of simulations that resemble a tree o…

You would not have to follow the causal chain if the creator was uncreated, but nonetheless He would be blameless because He would answer to no one.

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

#99

Post by chc-sc »

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…

What if the religious scripture is a lot more true than some people give it credit for?-- i.e. that it's the story of our ancestors interacting with the creators of the simulation

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

#100

Post by thecupisblue »

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…

Yes, the universe is basically a machine learning model to put into light words.

An agent gets in a position, interacts with other agents, trains, then his training session ends and depending on what things the agent didn't learn and how did he act (imagine if Karma was like proof-of-training, and the more an agent learns/acts/follows path without interrupting the learning/path-following processes of other agent) he's sent back for re-learning in another position where he can learn what he failed on. Consider that time/space isn't a constraint for this placement, it's really a great training system. But also, we'll fork this with a recursion into another universe of our own in 20-30 years I believe and I feel like more and more people are going to slip "upwards" in the coming years.

> Why would our universe be finite if the parent universe infinite? Because you can't "solve" an infinite game.

They're recursively infinite (aka we make a new one, our models make a new one), but each one is "finite" in a sense that it will end in all equating the same. The outcome is already determined and our agents are just defining the path through it. Throwing the Monte Carlo dice.

In the end, the circle defines itself, pi is looking for it's next decimal.

Post reply on HN