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)

#101

Post by tsegratis » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #31

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.

Yes, it would need to be qualitively different

Simply to be able to simulate the universe, or provide a basis for (however we describe the issue) already needs to an excessively stupendous amount of power -- but that is something still within the realms of physics

I was suggesting (as essentially do you) that to break out of the nested simulations (or whatever formulation) takes something qualitively different to what this universe is able to even fully conceptualize

My placation to God (aka universe simulator runner), is to say that clearly this thing exists (else we don't) and clearly it must be different and outside the universe to an extent that we can't describe it

In the same way that a set can't describe it's aleph numbers

-- So in brief, I'm agreeing that another layer of simulation doesn't cut it

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

#102

Post by tsegratis » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #7

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…

There’s no natural reason to think that the laws of the universe aren’t what they are simply due to a natural process. While no one has credibly made a testable hypothesis on what this process would be as of yet. However I don’t have reason to believe this would be impossible to test.

Whatever system made the laws of the universe, it is presumably extremely consistent and uniform (otherwise how give rise to such a uniform universe)

So yes, eminently testable, no disagreement with you on that

And yet at the same time, the simulation hypothesis is not really disprovable, and infact, is quite reasonable

Which presents the problem (if simulation is not disprovable) that there may be many valid explanations that are untestable

So in that sense, I would say impossible to test

But still I'm surprised you say there are no testable hypotheses!

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

#103

Post by neonate » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

https://archive.is/ENDoc

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

#104

Post by dang » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

tomcooks wrote: post #24

2016

Added above. Thanks!

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

#105

Post by tsegratis » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

polynomial wrote: post #81

tomrod wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, well said, I was simply postulating a prime mover as already given by many others; Aristotle, Aquinas, etc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

Without a prime mover, we are left with turtles, true, I think

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

#106

Post by tsegratis » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #86

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.

Mathematics can describe concepts abstractly, like a type checker checking a program, even if we can't decide whether the program halts or not

In that sense, we might be able to use mathematics to describe systems that are beyond the reality of the universe

For 'us' to be meaningful to 'them', hopefully we can conclude that in some sense, 'they' are meaningful to 'us', tho agreed, as you said, it is no given

I like the aleph sequence, because it shows that allowing paradoxes and impossibilities doesn't mean all bets are off -- that the universe can make perfect sense, even containing paradoxes that are beyond our conception

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

#107

Post by andyana » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

taf2 wrote: post #43

hirundo wrote: post #33

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.

I think probably as likely as the earth is at the center of the universe. The simulation theory as fun as it is to imagine I think is more like the earth being flat or center of the universe type thinking … it more comes from our imagination then from our observation

Our observations are driving the comparison, no? People are trying to make sense of existence but only have their personal experiences and knowledge to use as evidence.

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

#108

Post by fabiospampinato » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #100

fabiospampinato wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be crappy to make something that isn't perfect, maybe it's not even possible to prove that something extremely complicated like the universe is bug-free. Obviously though it might be a matter of perspective, we might as well be gods compared to ants, our code might be buggy but I don't think ants are smart enough to figure that out.

Complexity of the universe comes from super simple (relatively for gods) rules of math. You don't have bugs in math.

There's actually a math theorem that says basically that, unless I'm misunderstanding, if your math has no bugs you can't prove it has no bugs with it.

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

#109

Post by andyana » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

jakobdabo wrote: post #66

IAmGraydon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like to think that whatever happens here is insignificant in the big picture, and that's why bad things happen and divine intervention doesn't routinely occur.

I can't explain why its insignificant, of course. It's like a hydrocarbon combusting in your car engine, and the rest of the little molecules wondering what kind of a monster could do that to them. We humans aren't even aware that it could be a problem.

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

#110

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

btschaegg wrote: post #88

jamiek88 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I'm pretty sure it happens all the time.