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

251–260 of 267 posts

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

#251

Post by ozzmotik »

thecupisblue wrote: post #102
bellerosee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but can you rephrase that for me. I don't understand how someone can be in a deterministic system and expect to not be deterministic as well. Nobody chooses their birth and what comes after isn't any different to me. We're shaped by genetics & environment conditions and all the external forces is everything around us. All working on one another and based on the preceding forces that were already exerted upo…

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…

it's nice to see that there is someone else who more or less understands my conception of determinism existing on a spectrum that can directly be mapped the the order of complexity that one is describing :)

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

#252

Post by ozzmotik »

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…

i would argue that just because they factor into everything and the ultimate outcome, that doesn't necessarily obviate the ability of a conscious actor to act in a subjective manner based on their interpretation of it. and sure, even that interpretation, to some extent, could be considered a deterministic process because it is constructed by inference from prior experiences and as such represents more of a learned response than an intentional choice, but I personally would say that it's not the actual outcome of the thing that acts as proof of free will, but rather the ability to even question a thing in the first place and to rationally be able to react to something in a way that does not necessarily follow given the input that led up to the situation. for instance, we are generally indoctrinated into the idea that life is inherently sacred, and as such it makes no sense to commit suicide and take it away, and as such it would make sense to claim that such a thing a suicide would not rationally follow if such a belief were to be actively "true". i personally don't believe that life is, per se, sacred or special, but rather just an emergent modality of matter that manifests in many ways, though the primary aspect we experience it through is biological.

also, speaking of biology: all emotions and experiences are ultimately the side effect of the ratio of the presence of different neurotransmitters within your biological substrate, but just because you have a certain configuration, doesn't mean you have to absolutely feel the way that that configuration entails. everything that you end up feeling is relative to everything that you have experienced before, and as such it stands to reason that one can choose to respond to given signals from the body in ways that may not necessarily align with the obvious intent of those signals. this is most clearly manifested in the whole fight or flight dichotomy; cowardice and courage in and of themselves are no different in terms of the physical conditions that come together to manifest them. both situations will likely make you more focused and hyper aware, due to the release of adrenaline and the increased feeling of a need to act in order to continue existing, but the manner in which a behavior is constrained under either label is wholly dependent on how one chooses to react to said adversarial stimuli

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

#253

Post by AndreiB »

philipov wrote: post #47
new299 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, one of the three major interpretations of quantum mechanics is Superdeterminism, where there are hidden variables that make everything just appear to be quantum mechanical, and that's wacky enough to fit together with the idea the universe is a simulation.

Superdeterminism has nothing to do with the "universe is a simulation" hypothesis. Superdeterminism claims that contrary to Bell's assumption, the settings of the detectors and the hidden variable are not independent.

Andrei

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

#254

Post by owens99 »

bitL wrote: post #195
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…

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...?

Absolutely. That would be incredibly enlightening.

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

#255

Post by owens99 »

coldtea wrote: post #188
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…

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 wo…

Yes, all of my statements are just one of thousands or millions of potentials scenarios.

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

#256

Post by philipov »

AndreiB wrote: post #253
philipov wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one of the three major interpretations of quantum mechanics is Superdeterminism, where there are hidden variables that make everything just appear to be quantum mechanical, and that's wacky enough to fit together with the idea the universe is a simulation.

Superdeterminism has nothing to do with the "universe is a simulation" hypothesis. Superdeterminism claims that contrary to Bell's assumption, the settings of the detectors and the hidden variable are not independent. Andrei

I didn't say they were connected theoretically. I said they are aesthetically compatible. A simulation is something we can imagine as having its initial conditions set to produce a desired behavior, namely quantum mechanics.

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

#257

Post by cgriswald »

coldtea wrote: post #239
cgriswald wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, de…

I think history needs to 'freely unfold' from the point where you're trying to make your observations. Up to that point, you can just include memories. There's a question on where to get those memories, though. Do you run simulations until you find a history that matches 'close enough' to actual history and just assume the memories formed there are good? (It's not even just memories. The placement of a rock, or the sting of an insect could have a big effect or none at all. And all that information is lost to the past.)

So, in the Lincoln assassination example, you could start the simulation at the moment you 'change history' because everything else that informs that moment is either present in your simulation (e.g., the temperature of the theater), or is in the past so actions on those items is informed by the participants memories. After that moment, I think you do need to simulate the whole thing. The reason is that the experiencing self makes decisions in the moment, and those decisions may inform the remembering self later.

And, of course, the whole thing rests on the nature of consciousness. If it's not a black box to the simulators they might be able to take shortcuts; or they may not have reason to generate consciousness at all if they know what consciousness will do in a given scenario.

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

#259

Post by nlh »

RealityVoid wrote: post #223
nlh wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with everything you say except one bit: “we couldn’t break it or trancend it” The same thing has been said about many man-made electronic systems, and we know how that’s gone so far ;) So I think for 95% of people, nothing would change, but for the folks on the forefront of experimental / particle physics, quite a bit would change because we’d be looking for a whole new class of exploits/vulnerabilities/ways to…

I'm willing to cede this argument to you, except 5% seems like a far far too great of a number for people "on the forefront of experimental / particle physics" by several orders of magnitude.

Heh you’re definitely right here. Maybe .005% is more like it :)

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

#260

Post by gremlinsinc »

Why would it be disastrous? If we are just computer bits/bytes then are we really as valuable as we claim? Is our life still valuable?

Our claim is that humanity is the most valuable thing in the universe right now because as far as we know we're the only life with intelligence. If we're just computer bytes then we're not even human, we're AI's a dime a dozen at that, and it's even then possible that we might even be in a nested simulation of another simulated universe which could go on and on making us even less and less unique.

I mean, I love my kids and want to live for them and see all their moments -- but as a collective species if we are just simulated it doesn't seem so bad then if the lights go out on all of us as we aren't even real. It's not the end of the world, since we're just bits in a computer in the real world.

Post reply on HN