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

81–90 of 127 posts

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

#81

Post by polynomial »

tomrod wrote: post #16
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…

Phooey. Turtles then. Because that simulator runner would also have a simulator runner, and so on. Let's leave the cultural baggage of self-existent platonic forms for ultimate power at the door, it's an ultimately overtrod path of philosophical inquiry. If you constitutionally can't leave it at the door, read David Brin's crystal spheres (and enjoy!).

Wasn't Crystal Spheres about the Fermi Paradox, not the Prime Mover Paradox?

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

#83

Post by Tenoke »

qayxc wrote: post #70
Tenoke wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

If we assume that this is running in a truly huge Factorio instance then monitoring the world intently would reveal so many subtle bugs and inconsistencies in a world with otherwise extremely straightforward laws that being in a simulation should be a prime hypothesis.

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

#84

Post by polynomial »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #69
naveen99 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Or if we represent G-d's eternal delight in cheeseburgers (irony intended) to the point he creates the universe just to experience such delight recursively. His quest to taste the infinite cheeseburger (which we experience as a bitflip in some n-dimensional cosmic diner.)

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

#85

Post by mcv »

zubspace wrote: post #39
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.

Pray, basically.

That's effectively what it is: anyone running a simulation of an entire universe, controlling the rules and data of that simulation, in a position to turn it on or off, change it, etc, is effectively the god of that simulated universe.

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

#86

Post by andyjohnson0 »

bloak wrote: post #62

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 com…

What if mathematics is only valid within the simulation?

If seems natural to us that a simulation must be grounded in mathematics, and that maths must therefore be a thing within the reality/universe that is running the simulation, but I don't think this is a given. The infrastructure might utilise something else that we can't conceive of.

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

#87

Post by rektide »

isn't it a bit weird to hypothesize that the virtuality would run on something as Reality 1.0/Earth-Normal as a computer?

are we assuming there are smarter cooler humans running around on their own planet with 7 continents, 5 oceans, in a 8 planet solar system (sorry pluto), orbiting a G2V class star? that are running big data-centers where they faithfully simulate physics, the planet, the heavens for us in essentially-exact detail?

that'd take a lot of computation. maybe our simulated reality only moves 10^-6 as fast, so they have time to do all the computation, and they're just really really old over there. in sci fi typically the uploaded people speed around at a much much faster time factor, but if we're trying to make sure that every physics experiment reproduces, biology & virology &c experiment & observations reproduce, that's a lot more complexity than what i imagine for your run-of-the-mill hyper-advanced society that has uploaded into the cloud: i imagine the uploaded society running a much more synthetic, simpler reality, selectively interesting.

to me, it's much easier to imagine a Great Fake situation, that humanity has been actively steered by unknown higher technology forces sometimes in the past couple thousands of years (and perhaps longer). i still tend to think we are a not entirely-uncommon random chance amid the congealed energy that exploded & hopefully pretty please contracts to explode again. i tend to think our past is our own. and so too our future.

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

#88

Post by btschaegg »

jamiek88 wrote: post #46
cainxinth wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.” -Douglas Adams

Aww you missed the best bit - ‘there’s another theory that says this has already happened’!

That's what always comes to my mind whenever someone mentiones quantum physics. :)

Adams could even have gone a bit further and added:

"We're just not sure how many times."

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

#89

Post by ethbr0 »

jamiek88 wrote: post #54
ethbr0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or any of the 50%+ of our games sales that involve combat and/or death?

I’d like to think if we knew those characters were sentient we’d act differently but...

To be completely fair to humanity, most people don't get enjoyment out of the arbitrary anguish of sentient creatures.

E.g. even animal fights are frowned on in most cultures, and bloodsports are now pretty heavily regulated (especially vs historical norms)

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

#90

Post by simiones »

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.

The idea of a simulation is essentially equivalent to religious idea of transcendence, just repacked in scientistic terms. You get another world, a creator, perhaps a meaning of life, perhaps even scientistic mind/body dualism (after all, our minds could be running different hardware than the rest of the simulation!).

Of course, it is as useless a model of the world for scientific purposes as all religions are - it can't explain anything that we don't already know about.

In fact, it's not even novel. The whole idea is quite similar to the Hindu notion of Māyā, the world we experience as an illusion that hides the real truths of the world.

Post reply on HN