Isn’t this basically impossible to prove? see Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
Effectively we can’t prove a higher level of the simulation because we are encoded in it?
What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
21–30 of 127 posts
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#22No dev up against a deadline is going to implement a Higgs Field. Those masses would be hard-coded.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#23Not complete without linking to Georg Hotz (geohot) talk at SXSW: "Jailbreaking the Simulation"
He's taking the hacker's perspective and exploring if the simulation would be hackable from inside.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#242016
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#25I’ve had a reoccurring dream since childhood about our universe being a B+ assignment in an extraterrestrial middle school classroom and that in effect I’m a npc in that effort.
Whenever this subject comes up I’m always a bit interested but it seems like an impossible thing to know.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#26There's just too much pain (both physical and emotional) and too many diseases in the world. I refuse to believe that a higher entity (name it God or aliens) would create or simulate all those cruel things.
One of the big benefits of running simulations is to test horrible things in a safe and contained sandbox. The fact that each data point has become sentient is a byproduct of the level of detail in which this simulation is constructed.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#27There's just too much pain (both physical and emotional) and too many diseases in the world. I refuse to believe that a higher entity (name it God or aliens) would create or simulate all those cruel things.
Why do you believe that a higher entity would care at all about your suffering? Why would they step in and intervene? You’re projecting human qualities (empathy, caring) on something you know nothing about, but which certainly isn’t human.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#28Unknowable.
And no, you'll have no way to break out of simulation and access api of the simulator, because if it's in place it works similarly to this:
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#29Maybe but if there's no way for information to move in and out, what does it matter? It just ends up being one more turtle on the bottom of the stack.
Some people value having a more complete picture for its own sake. It can also potentially influence some decisions at some point - e.g. an increased focus on looking for computationally cheaper shortcuts in the nature of reality or slightly decreased extremely long-term outlook if a simulation comes with a higher chance of being shutdown before the heat death of the universe etc.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#300
1 And now we have a dyad. Great job. Do you have any idea what just started?
computers as we know them are pretty limited in simulating anything in real time. I mean we are limited to double precision most of the time. If we are in a simulation, it isn’t a piece of silicon and metal running on electricity with all the finite math. Maybe if you redefine computer to be reality and have a model for dealing with singularities and infinities.