Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

simulation-argument.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#21

Post by lidHanteyk »

naasking wrote: post #14
ggambetta wrote: post #5

I remain unconvinced. On some level the logic is sound. On the other hand, reminds me of the arguments by Saint Augustine and other philosophers "proving" the existence of God. Centuries later, we look back at these arguments as cute, naive attempts that probably sounded very clever at the time. I feel like we'll look back at these "we're living in a simulation" proofs the same way.

The argument isn't attempting to convince you we are in a simulation, it's rather laying out the only three possible outcomes: 1. Simulations cannot be built: simulations are impossible, advanced civilizations go extinct before they're built, etc. 2. Simulations will not be built: future humans have no interest in ancestor simulations, they have ethical qualms against doing so, etc. 3. We are almost certainly in a si…

4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory. Therefore, some simulations can be built, but every simulation loses fidelity, and below a certain threshold there are no longer any bits being conveyed. We would only be in a simulation if there is a pool of resources greater than that of the observable Universe, and by definition of the latter, we cannot model the former other than to say "yeah, it's big". So (3) doesn't grant any predictive power at all.

Crucially, we have simulated our own ancestors, but the simulation did not appear to us to contain any sort of inner experiences from our ancestors. Is this because we aren't modelling faithfully enough, or because there are fundamental limits on the ability to model inner experiences?

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#22

Post by naasking »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #17
jere wrote: post #11

In order to make the simulation hypothesis remotely believable, you have to assume a dozen premises which are nonstarters. In particular: >Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed I'm glad Bostrom says simulating the universe is infeasible (most peopl…

Indeed, the Free Will Theorem of quantum mechanics makes short work of Bostrom's hope that it would be possible to just rewind the Universe and get the desired outcome, as if creating a tool-assisted speedrun. Edit: Imagine that you are simulating a qubit. You want the qubit to behave a certain way, but it refuses to do what you want. You try rewinding it over and over with your magic time-rewinder, but it still refu…

The Free Will Theorem has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't even say that people or particles have free will, it says only that experimenters and particles have the same amount of freedom. That could still be zero, because deterministic interpretations of QM exist.

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#23

Post by naasking »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #21
naasking wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn't attempting to convince you we are in a simulation, it's rather laying out the only three possible outcomes: 1. Simulations cannot be built: simulations are impossible, advanced civilizations go extinct before they're built, etc. 2. Simulations will not be built: future humans have no interest in ancestor simulations, they have ethical qualms against doing so, etc. 3. We are almost certainly in a si…

4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory. Therefore, some simulations can be built, but every simulation loses fidelity, and below a certain threshold there are no longer any bits being conveyed. We would only be in a simulation if there is a pool of resources greater than that of the observable Universe, and by definition of the latter, we cannot model…

> 4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory.

That's part of 1: simulations cannot be built. A simulation that loses fidelity is not a proper simulation is it?

Also, you're assuming a simulation of physics, but simulating a world of minds is more feasible.

> Crucially, we have simulated our own ancestors, but the simulation did not appear to us to contain any sort of inner experiences from our ancestors.

We haven't, we have crude models compared to "post-humans" which would have a proper understanding of the algorithms at play in the human mind.

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#24

Post by rdimartino »

est31 wrote: post #19

I remember reading a webcomic where one protagonist brought this point forward, concluding that most worlds are simulated and thus we live in a simulation. The other protagonist was super annoyed and replied sarcastically that the other person made a point, most points are false, and thus their point was bullshit. I thought it was xkcd but can't find it. Anyone know which webcomic it was?

It sounds like this https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/simulations

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#25

Post by Ruphin »

Theoretically there is no reason to assume that simulating the entire universe down to quantum level as we understand it is infeasible. Perhaps the laws of physics and nature are different in the 'real' world which allows the existence of a system that can simulate our universe. There is no reason to assume that physics in our universe operate in the same way as physics in the 'real' universe, if our universe turned out to be a simulated one.

The physics in a simple simulation game like Minecraft is consistent from the perspective of inhabitants of that world. And although Minecraft is Turing complete, from the perspective of inhabitants of that world, it would seem equally impossible to simulate their entire universe from the tools available within the game.

Analogous to how Minecraft is a simulation with a simplified model of our physics, our world could be a simulation with a simplified model of 'real' physics. There is no way to ever find out if this is the case.

To me the interesting part of this is that regardless if we are simulated or not, it doesn't make our lives any less 'real'. Suppose we all lived in a simulation, would that matter? We still think, feel, and operate in the same way. It's not like The Truman Show where if we figure it out we get to escape to the larger world. Would knowing that all this is a simulation change the way you behave? Would you be more reckless, or more careless towards others? Any pain we inflict, on ourselves or others, still has the same effect. I don't see how it changes anything.

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#26

Post by lidHanteyk »

naasking wrote: post #23
lidHanteyk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory. Therefore, some simulations can be built, but every simulation loses fidelity, and below a certain threshold there are no longer any bits being conveyed. We would only be in a simulation if there is a pool of resources greater than that of the observable Universe, and by definition of the latter, we cannot model…

> 4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory. That's part of 1: simulations cannot be built. A simulation that loses fidelity is not a proper simulation is it? Also, you're assuming a simulation of physics, but simulating a world of minds is more feasible. > Crucially, we have simulated our own ancestors, but the simulation did not appear to us to contain…

Sorry, I don't think that people have rich internal experiences; I think that every human is a p-zombie. Therefore when I say "simulation" I am talking exclusively about physics simulations. All life is chemistry; all chemistry is physics.

Nonetheless there are some elementary results that we can use. It takes more than one qubit to simulate a qubit, for example.

The simulations I am thinking of, for example, are those which tell us our genetic ancestry [0][1]. We can simulate the entirety of the depth of human sexual expression, in one single dimension, in this way. So do humans really have a rich internal experience relating to their sexuality? I don't know and I can't tell, but nonetheless the simulations are possible.

Would you care to share with the class how a "world of minds" can be simulated? How can the fidelity of a mind be measured? You appear to have solved a lot of the Hard Problem when nobody was looking!

Edit: Ah, you can't. Good try, thanks for playing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#27

Post by [deleted] »

naasking wrote: post #22
lidHanteyk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the Free Will Theorem of quantum mechanics makes short work of Bostrom's hope that it would be possible to just rewind the Universe and get the desired outcome, as if creating a tool-assisted speedrun. Edit: Imagine that you are simulating a qubit. You want the qubit to behave a certain way, but it refuses to do what you want. You try rewinding it over and over with your magic time-rewinder, but it still refu…

The Free Will Theorem has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't even say that people or particles have free will, it says only that experimenters and particles have the same amount of freedom. That could still be zero, because deterministic interpretations of QM exist.

[deleted]

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#28

Post by naasking »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #26
naasking wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory. That's part of 1: simulations cannot be built. A simulation that loses fidelity is not a proper simulation is it? Also, you're assuming a simulation of physics, but simulating a world of minds is more feasible. > Crucially, we have simulated our own ancestors, but the simulation did not appear to us to contain…

Sorry, I don't think that people have rich internal experiences; I think that every human is a p-zombie. Therefore when I say "simulation" I am talking exclusively about physics simulations. All life is chemistry; all chemistry is physics. Nonetheless there are some elementary results that we can use. It takes more than one qubit to simulate a qubit, for example. The simulations I am thinking of, for example, are tho…

If you're a materialist, then you should accept that all of our apparent rich internal experiences can be captured by algorithms. A "world of minds" simulation need only run these algorithms, not the physics that underlie them. This is many orders of magnitude simpler.

Furthermore, a simulation also needn't simulate the physics equipment we use to test our physics. An advanced simulation of the human brain's algorithms contains semantic content about what the individual believe these machines do, what properties they test for, so they need only simulate the interface and report results consistent with those properties and subject to the expected error distribution.

You seem to be forgetting that these are post-human civilizations, so they would have such detailed understanding of the human brain.

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#29

Post by Uehreka »

I feel wholly unconvinced that future civilizations will definitely build ancestor simulations. I feel like a lot of these arguments do a bad job of explaining what utility these ancestor simulations would be to the future civilizations, and basically say something like “it will be so easy to create such a simulation, members of the future society will just create them on a whim for amusement.”

But given that Moore’s law has run out and there are no pathways we can see to faster computation (we’re even starting to hit the bedrock of physics in our search) such a simulation would probably require considerable resources. We’re talking like, mining asteroids for silicon and indium and using immense solar panels for energy.

Which gets me to the point that I think strikes at the heart of the argument and kills it: A society capable of ancestor simulations would have to be extremely highly ordered. The universe abhors order and is constantly regressing to higher entropy states. So while the existence of such a society may not be impossible, it would seem to be very very unlikely (and perhaps even short-lived if it did happen), thus meaning there probably aren’t many long-lived high-quality ancestor simulations, and thus we probably aren’t living in one.

Re: Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]

#30

Post by simonh »

I'd like to pick on one particular issue related to substrate independence. I recently watched an interview with John Searle in which he proposed that a simulated brain would not be conscious. His reasoning was that a weather simulation in a computer couldn't make anything wet.

If that's true then the simulation argument fails. I'm not convinced though. It seems to me that the materialist argument, and Searle seems to be a materialist, is that consciousness is an emergent property of neuronal activity which is basically a form of computation. Well simulated weather isn't weather, but computer simulated computations are actually computations.

So while I am highly skeptical of the simulation argument, I don't object to it in this respect. Also I feel bad disagreeing with Searle as I think he gets so much else right and has made many very valuable contributions.

Post reply on HN