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

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

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

#61

Post by Folcon »

I find the notion of a sim a little more interesting that other kinds of closed systems, because unlike say "what if the world is a dream" there are constants in a sim, rules are fixed. Those rules may be exploitable.

So I'm just curious where the bugs may be found? After all anything this complicated probably has bugs =)... Is it in quantum mechanics? Faster than light travel? Something super mundane that we've not thought about because it's that simple way someone decided to trigger debug mode?

Find those and fun things may be possible, which would also give us evidence for the sim theory.

I'm not holding my breath, but it's fun to think about.

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

#62

Post by bloak »

The first step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a universe whether that universe is "real" or simulated.

The second step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a simulated universe whether you actually run the simulator, or even bother building it.

For example, the set of prime numbers less than 10^12 exists whether or not you build and program a computer to print them out. If you write a program that simulates a universe, then the mathematical object defined by that program exists whether or not you build a computer and run the program, and to any conscious beings that happen to exist inside that hypothetical universe it can't possibly make any difference.

That's my opinion, anyway.

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

#63

Post by arketyp »

Maybe the universe exists precisely because it's indistinguishable from its own simulation. Maybe that's existence per se. Maybe self-reference is more fundamental than void. Likelihood arguments assume some kind of bottom level, but perhaps there is none.

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

#65

Post by Igelau »

rendall wrote: post #58

Simulation is such a lack of imagination. I see it situated right in the tradition of always comparing the universe to the latest technology. The Universe is... a clock! A hologram! Electricity! A computer! What if the Universe were a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensibl…

> What if the Universe is a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensible entities?

That's supposed to be a trade secret, who leaked this to you?

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

#66

Post by jakobdabo »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #27
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.

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.

Then why simulate the suffering, and especially why do that in all the sick ways that exist? Out of cruelty? Or sporting?

Just choose a disease and go for a 10 minute Wikipedia rabbit hole.

If cruelty exists in their world, then empathy and caring must exist too.

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

#69

Post by 52-6F-62 »

naveen99 wrote: post #30
52-6F-62 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm actually with you. I was trying to make a clever remark. I find it entertaining that ancient occult symbolism of your definition (1/0, singularity/infinity) to be the resulting mathematical foundation of modern computing, though.

Personally, I think the discussion of "is it a simulation" is just getting into the mechanics again and is only held to be defining of reality by hardened materialists. I mean, that is just computing catching up with physics catching up with spirituality with regard to facing the question of: what really matters and what really is the point if we're just a small crest of a wave in the infinite ocean of energy, or if we're a bunch of emergent consciousnesses in god's infinite quest to know itself, or I want a cheeseburger because of some cosmic bitflip in some nth dimension of recursive simulations, and so on.

The truth of any of it is likely to be found in the abstract, if anywhere, I suppose.

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

#70

Post by qayxc »

Tenoke wrote: post #37
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.

> it's definitely not impossible a priori and especially not because of Gödel.

You forgot something there: you know the underlying system and about its existence. In the absence of this knowledge it's indeed impossible to know.

Here's an example from real-life physics: there's no way of telling by means of measurement, whether you're accelerating or at rest but subjected to a gravitational field.

A software example would be this: how would a program written and running in Factorio (like Pong [0]) be able to tell that it's implemented by means of video game mechanics running in an emulator executed within a VM on server hardware?

If the programming environment itself features no way of interrogating its runtime environment, then there's just no way.

[0] https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=76155

Post reply on HN