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

231–240 of 267 posts

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

#231

Post by thecupisblue »

sysbin wrote: post #203
thecupisblue wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the scope you put on it. Large scale universe lifetime? determinism. Your thoughts? Not. Your actions? Combination of both, expression of all the influencing factors and what your model brings. That's why you can override your biological self (not walk to the fridge when you're hungry but stay in the chair reading a book). You might say "but oh this is also predetermined", but I say there a space…

I still don't see how that removes determinism and very much would be predetermined as you know I would write. Even if the need for hunger disappears. Our previous variables/memories/wants/desires we collected would still factor into everything. Let's say we made a machine at this point to remove those variables from our brain. Well the action taken to do that or not would be predetermined. So if we did wipe everythi…

Because "determinism" in the way I look at it doesn't mean that everything in the path is already predetermined. At macro level (universal,existance scale,planet scale, up to inside one's head), yes, but at "micro" level, there is loft left for non-determinism.

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

#232

Post by ASalazarMX »

mikestew wrote: post #138
ako wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what would it mean if there are gods of simulation? Most religions and gods purely exist as a way to implement law and order: define what is good and bad, and to manipulate people to behave accordingly (otherwise you will be punished in hell). Would simulation gods really be interested in us following good and bad rules, or more interested to see what happens if people do as they want? If this is a simulation, my…

highly intelligent Why would you assume that humans be considered highly intelligent? The experiment might not be as flattering as you’d like to think.

I'd wager we're highly intelligent matter compared to the average matter known so far.

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

#233

Post by rizcam »

It depends entirely on the nature of the simulation. Perhaps that is the purpose of it, or perhaps we are individual conscious beings outside the simulation playing characters in the simuation, like the Matrix. I speculated more about this recently in a talk at google on the simulation hypothesis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHlfe2HE_gQ&t=1736s

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

#234

Post by ASalazarMX »

ozzmotik wrote: post #75
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.

i don't think that proving reality to be a simulation would necessitate the proof of any divine beings. all it would really prove is that we are within a simulation that was put into place by something capable of doing such. there is no reason to ascribe "divine" or "holy" traits to those potential creators. granted, i operate under the ideology that there is no distinction between "divinity" and mundane reality itse…

From our point of view, any omnipotent being is a god. Even a near-omnipotent simulated being would fit the definition.

This doesn't mean they have to be worshiped or the center of any religion, it would just mean omnipotent beings do exist.

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

#235

Post by ASalazarMX »

vchak1 wrote: post #150
goatinaboat wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Simulated clock speed, which could be immensely slower than the real clock speed.

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

#236

Post by HillaryBriss »

If having simulated beings who prove they're in a simulation is a failure mode, then the super beings would not be running those simulations any more. They've programmed that fatal bug out. What are the odds we're in such a simulation? Exceedingly low.

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

#237

Post by incompatible »

insickness wrote: post #111
rapnie wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the simulation could very well be limited to just one person (and that person being you , of course).

The entire simulation could have started ten minutes ago, with false memories implanted.

My life seems too mundane for that to be plausible. It's hard to see what anyone would gain from this simulation.

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

#238

Post by baggy_trough »

incompatible wrote: post #237
insickness wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire simulation could have started ten minutes ago, with false memories implanted.

My life seems too mundane for that to be plausible. It's hard to see what anyone would gain from this simulation.

You're probably just a NPC put there to comment for my benefit.

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

#239

Post by coldtea »

cgriswald wrote: post #213
coldtea wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This does not "necessaril…

Ah. I think the core problem here is we're talking about a loosely defined "school project", but I frequently shift into the constraints of a Bostrom-style ancestor simulation. To respond, you're right, you can hypothetically do any of those things in the school project. Although I fail to see the point of consciousness in such a scenario, because you're basically just having conscious beings play D&D at that point.…

>You don't want him to remember having had breakfast. You want him to actually have breakfast.

For a full "ancestor simulation" yes, that's true.

Though does it have to be full, to look like reality does to us (e.g. for the simulation to be like what we live in)?

At some level, remembering X and having had X is the same with regard to the individual (especially if you can also make their organism not feel hungry, depleted, etc, the same as having had breakfast).

This reminds me of the "5 minute world hypothesis": "The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included".

This wouldn't be a "Bostrom-style ancestor simulation" that starts from the Big Bang say and lets everything unfold -- but it could still be a simulation that sees how such things as us, given the starting rules and conditions set at an arbitrary point in time behave.

I guess a problem with that is that it doesn't let our evolution/history fully freely unfold (from big bang and very limited initial configuration).

Then again, they could have had it "fully unfold", got to something like a "year 2500 A.D" humanity, and now are trying various changes at different eras to see what they get. In such a setup they can take shortcuts, because they know the tolerances of the system (and e.g. that a "fake full" stomach of Lincoln wont change anything of substance).

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

#240

Post by incompatible »

baggy_trough wrote: post #238
incompatible wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My life seems too mundane for that to be plausible. It's hard to see what anyone would gain from this simulation.

You're probably just a NPC put there to comment for my benefit.

No you.
Post reply on HN