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

171–180 of 267 posts

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

#171

Post by cgriswald »

danilocesar wrote: post #161

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us? Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Maybe they are saying: - h…

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation.

That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation.

His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. This means that such a high percentage of humans are simulated, that you'd have nearly infinitely better odds of winning the lottery than being a non-simulated human. To me, this means we should conclude we are the center of the simulation, since the fact that we exist implies we are probably in an ancestor-simulation.

> Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us?

> Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction.

Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate the expansion/contraction? There seems to be little need for conscious beings (or life at all), unless life and/or conscious beings is required in some way to explain expansion/contraction. (But if so, wouldn't that mean we ARE in fact the 'center of the simulation'?

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

#173

Post by dmichulke »

cgriswald wrote: post #171
danilocesar wrote: post #161

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us? Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Maybe they are saying: - h…

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with…

> His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line.

I read somewhere that the smallest computer to simulate the universe necessarily has the size of the universe.

This would that either the real universe contains much more information (likely more than a few orders of magnitude more so that a trivial part of that Ur-universe can be allocated to simulate our universe), or recursion is not possible.

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

#174

Post by RHSeeger »

cgriswald wrote: post #171
danilocesar wrote: post #161

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us? Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Maybe they are saying: - h…

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with…

Doesn't that imply that it needs to be physically possible to simulate a universe that is as complex as your own universe. I would think that it should be possible to prove that isn't true.

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

#175

Post by inflatableDodo »

cgriswald wrote: post #171
danilocesar wrote: post #161

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us? Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Maybe they are saying: - h…

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with…

I think that if your metric is not total number of universes, but available quantity of causal interactions, then Bostrom's argument falls apart on probability as well. More stuff can happen in the top level universe, unless you are dedicating more than half the top level universe to simulation, so you are more likely to exist there.

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

#176

Post by tux1968 »

owens99 wrote: post #142
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 combinat…

We don't necessarily have to prove we're in a simulation for those things to be true. Maybe the idea of God and prayer are in fact exactly such a conduit to the people running the simulation. If you believe in the simulation, you have to believe that this idea is completely credible at least.

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

#177

Post by cgriswald »

dmichulke wrote: post #173
cgriswald wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with…

> His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. I read somewhere that the smallest computer to simulate the universe necessarily has the size of the universe. T…

Even if humans were to colonize the entire Milky Way, the interactions between two neutrons 13 billion light years away would still be completely outside the scope of the simulation, because those interactions would have no hope of being detected by a human. So you'll always have massive savings versus simulating the entire universe.

It's really human computing where it all falls apart.

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

#178

Post by cgriswald »

RHSeeger wrote: post #174
cgriswald wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with…

Doesn't that imply that it needs to be physically possible to simulate a universe that is as complex as your own universe. I would think that it should be possible to prove that isn't true.

See my response to the sibling comment. You don't need to simulate the entire universe. You only need to simulate those parts that can possibly affect a human being. There's no need, for instance, to simulate photometry for stars in the Andromeda galaxy because we lack the resolution to measure the movement of those stars.

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

#179

Post by azinman2 »

lostmsu wrote: post #113
azinman2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not in terms of AGI. We’re no where near it. Don’t believe the hype.. we can just do what we previously could do, but more accurately. The truly hard problems still have no solution in sight.

Seems to be a very poor argument. How do you know what humans do is not what deep nets do now, but a bit more accurately?

The complexity and variety of biology vastly outstrips anything like DNN — the many types of cells, the chemical gradients, the types of connections, all the massive varieties of support glues like Myelin sheaths and their effects, the connectivity to nerves and our organs, our relationship and feedback loops with bacteria... it goes on and on.

Just because DNNs are hot right now doesn’t mean much. If you follow machine learning long enough, you’ll see hype cycles for various techniques. Neural nets used to be hot in the 80s, until they weren’t, and now they are again. Something else will come along soon enough. We use the techniques we do usually because the math works out, not because it’s anything like how our brains work.

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

#180

Post by lowkeyokay »

danilocesar wrote: post #161

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us? Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Maybe they are saying: - h…

I think of it this way: We are already running simulations of the universe with very simple models. Imagine 1000 years from now what type of models we could be using. Perhaps models where every known law of physics is precisely modeled. Then let it run from Big Bang and fast forward 14 billion years. Maybe the simulation would create some lifeforms. Even if that was not the intention.

If that's not too far a stretch then maybe some civilization exists where their top notch model will create the world we experience. Maybe they don't care or aren't aware that the simulation simulate life. Maybe they just care about how the universe evolves, and we are a biproduct of that.

Post reply on HN