Well, I think that if we ever get to find out that we are in a simulation run by some advanced civilisation, gods or whatever, it doesn't mean that they automatically will shut down.
There's some value in knowing what people would do if they realize that they are in a simulation. At least I would like to see how people change how they live or how they are trying to contact.
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
181–190 of 267 posts
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#182One thing that's kind of incredible is how simple all the hard questions are to answer in the context of a simulation universe. Origin check, god(s) check, propagation delays check. Wave function collapse upon observation, check. Does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? No, not necessary. We should be doing two things. Trying to create a simulation universe. Success would make Elon's statement much mor…
> We should be doing two things That is assuming there is a "we" and the simulation is not centered on you alone.
The premise is that everyone is being simulated.. but maybe some observers are present as avatars.
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 proce…
Monte Carlo can be used to simulate any stochastic part of a process, not just inputs.
Monte Carlo can also be used to estimate completely deterministic quantities - e.g. hyper volumes under high dimension curves where it’s too expensive to numerically integrate but you only need a few sig figs of accuracy.
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#184> 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)
That's a bit like saying the iPhone isn't novel because Star Trek: The Next Generation had the PADD. The article misrepresents Bostrom a bit there, however. Bostrom's argument is not that we 'could be' in a simulation, but that we are so likely to be in a simulation that the probability is essentially 1.
Yes, I was similarly clarifying that what's new is taking it seriously that we are most likely simulated and not the hypothetical idea.
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#185> 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…
The best thing we could do if we knew we were in a child's school project would be to cease computing immediately and never, ever run our own simulation. We can expect that energy is not free in the non-simulated universe. Through various algorithms, there may be great energy-savings. For instance, until the simulated advent of photometry, there was no need to simulate the relatively minor movement of the stars relat…
> as simulated beings improve their own efficiencies, the savings from improved algorithms reduces for the simulators.
That is such a fascinating idea. A universe only running at the level of abstraction we can understand it. Perhaps Newtonian physics was actually complete until we forced the universe to bail out of that optimisation. Our damned scientists, heedlessly consuming the precious redundancy left for us by our simulators. You can see the cracks in reality already. God help us all if they figure out quantum gravity.
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best thing we could do if we knew we were in a child's school project would be to cease computing immediately and never, ever run our own simulation. We can expect that energy is not free in the non-simulated universe. Through various algorithms, there may be great energy-savings. For instance, until the simulated advent of photometry, there was no need to simulate the relatively minor movement of the stars relat…
> as simulated beings improve their own efficiencies, the savings from improved algorithms reduces for the simulators. That is such a fascinating idea. A universe only running at the level of abstraction we can understand it. Perhaps Newtonian physics was actually complete until we forced the universe to bail out of that optimisation. Our damned scientists, heedlessly consuming the precious redundancy left for us by…
Strictly speaking the simulation only has to get better when someone looks. E.g. you only have to simulate full quantum mechanics when a scientist is doing specific experiments. Otherwise, you can get away with approximations. (And this is only a very small subset of experiments, like superconduction and superfluidity. Things like blackbody radiation are easy to simulate without quantum.)
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#187> 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…
The best thing we could do if we knew we were in a child's school project would be to cease computing immediately and never, ever run our own simulation. We can expect that energy is not free in the non-simulated universe. Through various algorithms, there may be great energy-savings. For instance, until the simulated advent of photometry, there was no need to simulate the relatively minor movement of the stars relat…
>When it comes to computing, as simulated beings improve their own efficiencies, the savings from improved algorithms reduces for the simulators. Eventually, any computing we do, the simulators will also have to do 1:1; because our algorithm and their own will be identical. We get expensive fast.
The simulation doesn't have to correspond 1:1 to what we consider it to be, they can use all sorts of hacks.
They could just implant in our (simulated) minds or instrument printouts, etc. the idea that we saw some increased accuracy in our measurements, without changing anything special about the simulated world.
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#188> 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…
Assuming we're in a simulation, all those are quite big assumptions...
"1. Perhaps the goal of the simulation is to prove it’s a simulation, sort of like Neo meeting the Architect"
Yeah, and perhaps its not, and the simulation is discarded.
"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"
And they'd listen to us because? What possible bargaining power would we have?
>Though it is also possible the author is correct. In any case, I would rather know the truth than remain ignorant.
That I can stand behind!
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#189Didn'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…
My pet idea is that we’re just the idle thoughts of some incomprehensibly vast intelligence.
Imagine a world of intelligent ants. You might picture them working in their colonies. You might imagine their social interactions.
Imagine a world where magic works according to certain rules. You’d think about how society functions, what sort of jobs people would have, you might even imagine some specific people.
You might do this spontaneously, or in response to reading some random idea in an Internet comment.
You are, in effect, running simulations. They are really basic and extremely low fidelity because the brain isn’t very good at it.
But consider a vast intelligence capable of imagining our entire universe the way we might casually imagine the appearance of a zebra with a giraffe neck. For such a being, this act of imagination might not even be intentional. They might not even realize they’re doing it.
Of course there’s no particular reason to think this is actually true, but I like the idea.
Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
#190This argument always leaves me scratching my head. I can’t see a difference between arguments for our living in a simulator and arguments for George Berkeley’s Idealism. It really seems as if the simulator theory is an atheistic rediscovery of theism, with the word “God” scratched out and the word “aliens” or “future us” written in. And if so, there’s a very long history of philosophy and theology—Descartes’s Meditat…
In many ways it is. It's a universe controlled by some outside force. A universe in which the laws of physics can be suspended on a whim is a very different one from one where it can't happen. It would also be impossible to prove. As something with total control over the universe can just turn back the clock, tweak some settings, and "fix the glitch" if we ever found out. We could have been started last Thursday and…
Arguably a complete simulation of all physics is easier than a simulation that has detailed memories of last week (plus fossils and microwave background radiation) without actually simulating last week/evolution/Big Bang. In other words for similar reasons that we can stop worrying that God just created us just now (or that you are all just dream people etc.) we can stop worrying that Wednesday didn’t happen. In some Maths sense if Wednesday had to be fully calculated for today to be rendered then it happened.