What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#31

Post by CorrectHorseBat » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

tsegratis wrote: post #3

I think, just as no system is fully self descriptive (there is always an axiom), and there is no fully self contained perpetual motion machine So it is reasonable to take the universe as not fully self descriptive or defining For instance can the universe create it's own arbitrary laws of physics and run molecules on that basis? No it doesn't And so essentially, a simulation, or God becomes required. And the one runn…

I don't see how adding a simulation/God solves your issue?

If a system cannot be self prescriptive/be without axioms/ (whatever you think the issue is) then adding another layer of systems is not going to solve your issue. If it can be, adding another layer is not necessary.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#32

Post by fabiospampinato » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #28

Unknowable. 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: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8

Not necessarily, there might be bugs in it.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#33

Post by hirundo » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

If it is a simulation, what are the odds that it's a game? The great majority of simulations that we know about are games.

If it is a game, what are the odds that you are a non player character? In games, the vast majority of characters aren't the player.

So if we are living in a computer simulation, odds are that we're non player characters.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#34

Post by alexshendi » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

The world certainly feels as if it was hacked together in C++ as a side project by an incompetent demiurge.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#35

Post by Igelau » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #18

jakobdabo wrote: post #10

There'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.

Isn't disease another lifeform trying to survive? Isn't God responsible for all life? Why do you think your life is most important in the eyes of God?

> Isn't disease another lifeform trying to survive? Isn't Nurgle responsible for all life? Why do you think your life is most important in the eyes of Nurgle?

Fixed that for you.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#36

Post by barrenko » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

jakobdabo wrote: post #10

There'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.

Yes, but if nothing really exists, then pain and drama are more than necessary (and kind of make even more sense).

To borrow a few pages out of the ancient Indian playbook, creator was really bored with perfect perfection and invented a way to entertain himself, otherwise it's a huge bland perfect nothing forever.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#37

Post by Tenoke » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #21

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?

Is it impossible for software to prove it's likely in a VM just because it is 'encoded in it'?

It depends on the implementation but it's definitely not impossible a priori and especially not because of Godel.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#38

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

It's hard to square Lorentz invariance with any kind of discrete approximation in either time or space.

Either you have causality (even if it's 'only' statistical) or you don't.

If the universe doesn't, we have bigger questions to worry about.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#39

Post by zubspace » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #6

Maybe 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.

If we're in a simulation there could be a way for information to flow out.

In this case, we could do things we're really good at. We could influence a viewer by showing them a myriad of ads for example. Or shift their political views to our advantage.

Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

#40

Post by ethbr0 » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #22

No dev up against a deadline is going to implement a Higgs Field. Those masses would be hard-coded.

Presumably you could delay implementing microscopic phenomena, as long as they're consistent with macroscopic phenomena, until such time as they're actually measured.

Lazy physics development. :)