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

191–200 of 267 posts

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

#191

Post by bitL »

cgriswald wrote: post #167
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…

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…

> a simple static jpeg of the night sky would suffice

Could you imagine our ancestors worshiping compression artifacts in the sky?

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

#192

Post by bitL »

sgentle wrote: post #185
cgriswald wrote: post #167

Earlier 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…

Hmm, that would align with some mystical movements throughout the history suggesting that mind/belief shapes the world directly; i.e. the physicists don't just observe reality, they invent it in the process and the underlying algorithms adapt.

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

#193

Post by lanstin »

coleifer wrote: post #164

Who cares, because eventually the buck stops somewhere. In other words, it doesn't matter how many layers of simulations there are, because at the top presumably there's a "reality". It's easiest to just assume that's where we're at, but if not, all the questions we ask about the nature of reality/life/being are still just as valid (even if we're operating at some remove from it).

Why need there be a top layer? Certainly it meshes with our evolution provided common sense but what makes it necessarily true? Some philosophy that abhors a completed infinity?

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

#194

Post by cgriswald »

coldtea wrote: post #187
cgriswald wrote: post #167

Earlier 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…

> 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 j…

Let's say I am a simulated being and I query WolframAlpha (WA). WA then has to do some computation to give me a result. This means that the simulation has to compute this result. It may be the the simulations algorithm is much more advanced than WA's algorithm, which means the energy it seems to take WA to do the computation is much greater than the actual energy it took. This means the simulated universe saves that energy difference (minus some overhead).

Now let's say WA improves their algorithm and it becomes identical to the algorithm used by the simulators. Now the computation that WA does is 1:1 with the computation the simulator has to do. You could argue, well, maybe they use better hardware that can do it more efficiently. Sure. But then WA can eventually do it on that same hardware. As all this improves, it necessarily goes to 1:1.

You might, instead, just store all queries in a lookup table the first time they are made. That would reduce your energy requirements. But now you've just traded infinite energy requirements for a possibly smaller, yet still infinite space requirement.

So, I think what you're saying is that you would just fake it. You just "tell" the simulated beings that they did the thing, and you skip over it. I'm not really sure how that would work in practice. If I need the result of my WA query so I can do some other math, and I'm writing all this down, how did I get all this notation on the page and how is it correct without anybody doing the calculations? Do they just force me to see 'something' and tell me what I'm seeing is correct? How do I get to an ultimate useful result?

In any case, if you're just going to go mucking about with people's minds, why bother with conscious beings in the first place?

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

#195

Post by bitL »

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…

What if the theory about an evil Demiurge is correct, i.e. ultimate psychopath designing our reality to maximize suffering of conscious beings, manifesting in short periods of health/prosperity to acquire taste/comparison baseline followed by long/eternal periods of suffering? Would you still like to know...?

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

#196

Post by hhjinks »

sgentle wrote: post #185
cgriswald wrote: post #167

Earlier 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…

> 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

Very simply explained, that's literally quantum mechanics. Our reality changes depending on how close we look at it. Some quantum/computer scientists have gone so far as to say that reality "runs" extremely sophisticated quantum error correction algorithms to stabilize something so fundamentally unstable into our observable reality. It was even discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18817410

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

#197

Post by lanstin »

cgriswald wrote: post #163
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)

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.

No doubt part of the iphones appeal was that it was a Star Trek type device. One of my early apps I downloaded was a tricorder type UI showing the different sensors and so on. Even had the no doubt copyrighted noises.

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

#198

Post by nathanlied »

bena wrote: post #154
owens99 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. is basically trying to create general AI. If you can make a simulation that is self aware, you've created intelligence. 2. is pointless. You can't. If while playing a video game, the game character turned to the screen and made a plea to you, would you listen? Or would you assume that it was a really weird game?

On 2, it widely depends. If I set out to create a game with 'advanced' AI (say, an algorithm actually capable of some form of self-learning, theoretically), and that happened, I'd hear it out. After all, the point is to make it smart, though I'd think no one would create a game to test out that level of algorithm - too costly. Similarly, if someone published a game with that level of possibility, they'd likely make it a huge selling point.

However, if our universe is a simulation, I'd posit that whoever created it has a reasonable assumption that self-aware life could arise from the experiment. Now, whether "self-aware life" is as important an achievement, or something to be preserved, to them as our current society... No one can answer that without being completely speculative - even if we do prove we're a simulation.

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

#199

Post by bitL »

bena wrote: post #154
owens99 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. is basically trying to create general AI. If you can make a simulation that is self aware, you've created intelligence. 2. is pointless. You can't. If while playing a video game, the game character turned to the screen and made a plea to you, would you listen? Or would you assume that it was a really weird game?

2. is more like an ant trying to overshoot its importance; a very limited being running inside a very limited universe demanding stupid things from the point of view of extraverse. You would probably laugh but most likely become angry at the ant's stupidity.

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

#200

Post by crimsonalucard »

It's like the creationist argument but inverse. If a thing has sufficient complexity it must be made. Hence we must be made, hence there is a god.

Like how there's flaws to the above argument there's flaws to the simulation argument.

I can create simulations of my universe and my simulations can create simulations of their universe and this can continue on an infinite chain therefore I am in a simulation by probability.

Where is the flaw? Let me apply the same argument to 3d printers. 3d printers can print clones and in turn the clones can also print 3d printers then by probability it is very likely that 3d printers are made by other 3d printers.

Well that's not the case in reality. 3d printers come from all kinds of sources and right now, most of the time it comes from a factory.

Why is this the case? Because the 3d printers ability to make other 3d printers does not effect the probability of it's own origins. Just like how the universes ability to create simulations of itself does not affect that it itself is a simulation.

Post reply on HN