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

141–150 of 267 posts

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

#141

Post by close04 »

albanread wrote: post #136
neilv wrote: post #122

> if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world. Not necessarily. If we're in a simulation, then perhaps it's one that's a you…

I agree; and this is why there is not one jot of extra risk in exploring and testing; our simulation could be shut down at any time for some incomprehensible and arbitrary reason; so lets just enjoy reality while it is still there. For all we know; the last fifty million years took place while Sally was away on a long school trip; and when she gets back she is going to be gutted that a disaster scenario killed all he…

Reminds me of Asimov's Jokester [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokester

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

#142

Post by owens99 »

neilv wrote: post #122

> if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world. Not necessarily. If we're in a simulation, then perhaps it's one that's a you…

You are absolutely correct to point out the key hole in this entire article; there are thousands of potential outcomes and potential benefits of proving we’re in a simulation.

1. Perhaps the goal of the simulation is to prove it’s a simulation, sort of like Neo meeting the Architect

2. If we do prove it’s a simulation, perhaps we can make a plea to the creator for the things we want and need

3. It could be a combination of the two. If it’s a simulation and we discover it, perhaps the genie will grant us three wishes

Though it is also possible the author is correct. In any case, I would rather know the truth than remain ignorant.

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

#143

Post by Digit-Al »

inflatableDodo wrote: post #26

Well, the current American ambassador to the UK is Woody Johnson, UKIP have just elected Dick Braine and government leaks are brought to us by Reality Winner, so if it is a simulation, the writers are busy dropping clues.

Sweet mercy. I completely missed the Dick Braine thing. It's like the party have been taken over by masochists who derive sexual pleasure from being mocked. If I were a Brexiter I would be highly embarrassed at being represented by that bunch of incompetents.

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

#144

Post by albanread »

mbil wrote: post #12

I like the ancestor simulation theory and it's really fun to think about. But I don't understand why humans specifically would be the thing to get simulated. Couldn't we just be a bi-product of a universe created to simulate something else? I mean imagine you wanted to simulate a universe -- given enough computing resources you could simulate a universe's worth of atoms, and humans might just be an accidental artifac…

I think we search for possible explanations of our own very good luck that you outlined above; and partly this search is due to the way our own brains work; we believe there must be a reason; so make up stories.

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

#145

Post by mensetmanusman »

new299 wrote: post #27
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…

But physics as we understand it, isn't entirely deterministic. There seem to be a number of other potentially important differences between living in a simulation and some other kind of "baseline" reality. One of those might be that a simulation sits inside of some kind of outer reality. It could therefore potentially be effected by that outer reality.

The probability distribution is deterministic, but not the particular outcome.

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

#146

Post by cgriswald »

RealityVoid wrote: post #82
rasz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you know rules of the game you can look for flaws/glitches and start cheating.

That is, assuming there are flaws/glitches. There might not be. Regardless, we're looking for glitches plenty, that is in my view, what modern physics is about. The study of glitches in our model and the adjusting of our model accordingly. If we were in a simulation the "glitches" would probably be something small and subtle, at sub-atomic level, not something that teleports you or gives you superpowers.

> Regardless, we're looking for glitches plenty, that is in my view, what modern physics is about. The study of glitches in our model and the adjusting of our model accordingly.

At the very least, knowing that violations of the model might not mean the model is wrong, but that there are glitches in the simulation would have a big impact on the search and interpretation of such glitches.

No longer could you say, "Well, our model is wrong." Now you would have to say, "Well, our model might be wrong, but also this could be a flaw in implementation." And the latter may be more exploitable than the former; at least for awhile.

> If we were in a simulation the "glitches" would probably be something small and subtle, at sub-atomic level, not something that teleports you or gives you superpowers.

There's no guarantee of that at all. A bigger problem is that if we find a glitch, the simulators might just shut down the simulation, patch the glitch, roll back time a bit, and then restart it and we'd be none-the-wiser.

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

#147

Post by mensetmanusman »

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.

It would not be proving the existence of gods, because it would lead to the question of why is there a reality wherein a being could create a simulation (which requires ordered laws of physics etc.).

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

#148

Post by tiborsaas »

onion2k wrote: post #87
rdlecler1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the spirit of Dan Dennett: then who simulated those gods? Super duper gods?

Maybe we did. Maybe it's circular. At least that would mean the state of the universe isn't stored in a JSON object. That'd be nice to know.

The initial parameters still could be stored in a small yaml file :)

You can fine tune those like artists do with fractal renderer programs. Maybe the Universe is an art project exhibited in some kind of museum.

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

#149

Post by inflatableDodo »

Digit-Al wrote: post #143
inflatableDodo wrote: post #26

Well, the current American ambassador to the UK is Woody Johnson, UKIP have just elected Dick Braine and government leaks are brought to us by Reality Winner, so if it is a simulation, the writers are busy dropping clues.

Sweet mercy. I completely missed the Dick Braine thing. It's like the party have been taken over by masochists who derive sexual pleasure from being mocked. If I were a Brexiter I would be highly embarrassed at being represented by that bunch of incompetents.

>It's like the party have been taken over by masochists who derive sexual pleasure from being mocked.

That could describe a lot of modern politics. Is almost spot on for Boris. Perhaps they are having a contest to see who can go lowest.

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

#150

Post by vchak1 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #137
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…

Right. You could hypothesise that the speed of light is the speed at which the model can maintain consistency, and the Planck distance is its resolution.

Clock speed, essentially?
Post reply on HN