Does it matter? I'm with Chalmers - of course it's a good question to ask. Can we tell? We don't know if we can tell or not. That's why we're asking the question.
It matters just as much as any other philosophical debate, at the very least.
On whether we're living in a simulation
21–30 of 206 posts
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#22"If they say, maybe you should live your life differently, just from knowing that you might be in a simulation, I respond: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague feeling that this discussion predates the 80 or so years we’ve had digital computers! Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly dif…
That variant is simply Pascal's Wager.
It's more interesting to ask whether, of we are in a simulation, it is possible to prove and/or find "escapes". All our experience with computational sandboxes so far is that preventing information leaks or escapes is extremely hard. Of course, we still have the problem that if we fi d nothing we don't know what that means.
From my perspective, I'm on the side that it's a fun philosophical question, but the odds of it having any practical implications are vanishingly low
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#23What's the reason for the simulation to be smaller than the simulator? Can't it just be the same but slower? This wouldn't be perceivable from the inside.
> > But because their simulations will have to run on computers that fit in our universe, presumably the simulated universes will be smaller than ours—in the sense of fewer bits and operations needed to describe them.
> Can't it just be the same but slower?
The number of bits needed to simulate another universe can't be larger than the number of bits we can store in this universe - there isn't enough space to store them! It's not a matter of simulation speed.
Theoretically, we could simulate another universe with the same number of bits that exist in this universe, but then there wouldn't be enough bits to store you in this universe. It's the paperclip problem all over again - the simulator doesn't want to destroy you, but your existence uses up bits that the simulator needs for its own purposes.
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#24[dead]
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#25What's the reason for the simulation to be smaller than the simulator? Can't it just be the same but slower? This wouldn't be perceivable from the inside.
> What's the reason for the simulation to be smaller than the simulator?
Depends on what "smaller" means:
- if "smaller" means "not able to contain as much information" then yes, the simulation has to be smaller or equal to the universe containing the simulation. You can't store N bits in N-1 bits in general (a simple counting argument can prove that).
- if "smaller" refers to a concept of physical dimension, then it's possible to simulate bigger universes, as long as it's a lower resolution simulation.
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#26Zizek says that with quantum physics, we've caught God with His pants down. Saying that some of the programming of our universe is undetermined in the same way that parts of computer game levels aren't meant for the player to go to. https://youtu.be/ywVHFo1na38
Zizek is someone who has made a career out of sounding clever without ever committing to being a disciplined intellectual.
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#27Zizek says that with quantum physics, we've caught God with His pants down. Saying that some of the programming of our universe is undetermined in the same way that parts of computer game levels aren't meant for the player to go to. https://youtu.be/ywVHFo1na38
Great. Flip the wrong bit, and get a guru meditation error?
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#28If we are living in a simulation, where does the simulation live in?
Pleroma? Lol.
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#29"If they say, maybe you should live your life differently, just from knowing that you might be in a simulation, I respond: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague feeling that this discussion predates the 80 or so years we’ve had digital computers! Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly dif…
It's still interesting to think about though. Specifically, I find it interesting that the concept of a "god" is actually realistic in a very tangible way.
Oh, theology is in general interesting to think about. But I am sceptical about the "realistic" claims. We don't know how consciousness works, so we don't know, whether we can simulate it with a computer.
Re: On whether we're living in a simulation
#30Zizek says that with quantum physics, we've caught God with His pants down. Saying that some of the programming of our universe is undetermined in the same way that parts of computer game levels aren't meant for the player to go to. https://youtu.be/ywVHFo1na38
Zizek is someone who has made a career out of sounding clever without ever committing to being a disciplined intellectual.
What do you mean by disciplined intellectual? Do you mean someone in academia or something else?