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)

#121

Post by CorrectHorseBat » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

tsegratis wrote: post #101

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

I think I see now what you mean.

I guess it just comes down to semantics then. I would say that, by definition (but I'm not sure if this is the most common definition), anything that can act upon the universe is part of it. Your God/simulator/... might be alien to us, but by definition it is part of our universe, and it's just us that do not entirely understand the capabilities of the universe.

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

#122

Post by fabiospampinato » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #120

fabiospampinato wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think you were referring to the first incompleteness theorem while I was referring to the second one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... > The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

This one just says that any non-trivial consistent set of math doesn't contain the proof of its consistency. Where consistency means it doesn't contain proofs of falsehoods. It doesn't seem like a bug to me. Just a way to ensure that any non-trivial math has no self sufficient bubbles. That no set of math is somehow better than others. That math is free and unlimited with it's choice of axioms and rules and no subset…

I wouldn't consider it a bug either, I didn't mention it because I thought it was a bug, I mentioned it following this line of thought: "You don't have bugs in math." -> if math were inconsistent it would be buggy -> if math is inconsistent it's buggy -> if it's not inconsistent you can't prove that it's not inconsistent -> you can't tell whether math has bugs in it (unless you can find some), which is a contradiction from your statement that there are just no bugs. It's basically impossible to prove that, and if you can't prove something you are left with nothing more than doubt.

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

#123

Post by scotty79 » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

fabiospampinato wrote: post #122

scotty79 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one just says that any non-trivial consistent set of math doesn't contain the proof of its consistency. Where consistency means it doesn't contain proofs of falsehoods. It doesn't seem like a bug to me. Just a way to ensure that any non-trivial math has no self sufficient bubbles. That no set of math is somehow better than others. That math is free and unlimited with it's choice of axioms and rules and no subset…

I wouldn't consider it a bug either, I didn't mention it because I thought it was a bug, I mentioned it following this line of thought: "You don't have bugs in math." -> if math were inconsistent it would be buggy -> if math is inconsistent it's buggy -> if it's not inconsistent you can't prove that it's not inconsistent -> you can't tell whether math has bugs in it (unless you can find some), which is a contradictio…

Ah I see. But it's only the case if you limit yourself to a subset of math. Subset of math is not provably consistent if you are trying to use just itself for the proof, but this subset is provably consistent if you extend your proving toolset with something else.

But the new extended subset has new, other troubles that make it impossible to prove its consistency by using just itself, so to prove its consistency you need to extend it again.

You can still have fully provable (i.e. bugless) subset of math, you just need other math to prove that it is so.

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

#124

Post by fabiospampinato » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #123

fabiospampinato wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't consider it a bug either, I didn't mention it because I thought it was a bug, I mentioned it following this line of thought: "You don't have bugs in math." -> if math were inconsistent it would be buggy -> if math is inconsistent it's buggy -> if it's not inconsistent you can't prove that it's not inconsistent -> you can't tell whether math has bugs in it (unless you can find some), which is a contradictio…

Ah I see. But it's only the case if you limit yourself to a subset of math. Subset of math is not provably consistent if you are trying to use just itself for the proof, but this subset is provably consistent if you extend your proving toolset with something else. But the new extended subset has new, other troubles that make it impossible to prove its consistency by using just itself, so to prove its consistency you…

Other math that you can't prove it's consistent, you end up just moving the problem one step away, but it's not going away.

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

#125

Post by yreg » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

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.

If I was someone like Elon or Obama I’d for sure think I’m a PC in a simulation.

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

#126

Post by scotty79 » Wed, Jul 07, 2021, 1:05 AM UTC

fabiospampinato wrote: post #124

scotty79 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I see. But it's only the case if you limit yourself to a subset of math. Subset of math is not provably consistent if you are trying to use just itself for the proof, but this subset is provably consistent if you extend your proving toolset with something else. But the new extended subset has new, other troubles that make it impossible to prove its consistency by using just itself, so to prove its consistency you…

Other math that you can't prove it's consistent, you end up just moving the problem one step away, but it's not going away.

Yes. But you don't need the whole math to run the universe. Just a subset of your choosing. And you can go beyond that subset (to a wider god-math) to prove that this subset is consistent.

And the fact that your extended god-math can't prove that it is itself fully consistent (doesn't generate any proofs of falsehoods) is not necessarily a problem. It's enough if no falsehoods were involved in the proof of the universe-math consistency.

And that's entirely possible. Theorem you mentioned doesn't say anything about that.

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

#127

Post by tsegratis » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:58 AM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #115

tsegratis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's an either/or if you presume designed structure and mindful order are the nature of the universe, which is typically what people adopt to avoid dealing with nihilism (if Camus, Kierkegaard, and Sartre are to be believed).

Personally I'll go with the one who introduces themself as "I AM who I AM"

To me that's a prime mover statement, if ever there was one

But I have a feeling you resolve nihilism towards something meaningful? Personally I don't get how that works, but I'm interested, and look forward to any explanation