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

On whether we're living in a simulation

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#41

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

This is fairly stupid pop philosophy. It's really a question about the nature of reality mixed with the fantasy that it's possible to to somehow step outside of reality, or that there is an entity creating and controlling reality, that becomes a fantasy about god existing.

Our reality exists entirely in our own minds, in that sense we live in a simulation we create in our brains. Using science to determine the details of our environment is useful, but speculating that there is something beyond what we can possibly study (by definition) is pointless.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#43

Post by bowsamic »

batch12 wrote: post #30
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think Andy is referring to the fact that Zizek stopped writing works that were cutting edge in philosophical academia a few decades ago

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#44

Post by b112 »

Karellen wrote: post #23
k__ wrote: post #4

What'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 t…

That's silly.

There are whole regions of space with no actual observer. Those can be swapped to disk, or DB backend until needed. They exist, they are part of the simulation, just not actively rendered.

Or they can be as sparse files in linux, null until used.

I think the big concern would then be, too many active NPCs would mean too much active universe, and then an OOM issue.

But of course people die, so once all the people who lived, and have memories of a thing die, then that global memory can be wiped.

There are lots of methods to save space! And to have bits not rendered, or taking active ram.

So over-committed sim space is a thing. Heck, maybe the project had plans for adding RAM and DB storage space, before active sim space got too big... but you know, budgets change.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#45

Post by bowsamic »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #33
dsego wrote: post #20

Zizek 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 says that with quantum physics, we've caught God with His pants down. am i the only one who finds zizek insufferable. he is so self absorbed. you ask him a yes/no question and he spends 30 minutes giving an anecodte about himself.

He's self absorbed but that's why I find him sufferable. The people I find very insufferable are the considerate ones who don't like to talk about themselves very much. That puts me on edge somehow.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#46

Post by Karellen »

WithinReason wrote: post #35
Karellen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 t…

many algorithms allow trading space for time

Even if you don't run the simulation at all, you can't hold the state of a single moment of the simulation in this universe, if you need more bits to do so than are available.

I don't understand how it might even be possible to get around that by "trading space for time". Can you expand on that, at all?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#47

Post by vidarh »

steve1977 wrote: post #39
vidarh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ph…

The only thing that could escape is information, or not? If we „are“ a simulation, we could not leave it anyway. We could just maybe communicate with the outside, but not go there .

Depends what you mean by "go there", and whether they are in a simulation.

Consider that if we're in a simulation, we're code, and an "escape" would involve getting out of a sandbox and perhaps being able to access their version of the Internet, and move around in it.

In that sense we might well be able to "go there".

Now imagine they're in a simulation, in which case their entire corporeal experience is code. There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case.

Of course we're now firmly in science fiction - the odds rapidly stacking up against it [in fact, I have bunch of half-baked notes on a short story collection based on the premise of stacked simulations and increasingly weird scenarios around that...]

But that's what makes it a fun thought experiment.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#48

Post by pera »

bowsamic wrote: post #38
amelius wrote: post #5

> My personal belief is that the deepest things we’ve learned about quantum gravity—including about the Planck scale, and the Bekenstein bound from black-hole thermodynamics, and AdS/CFT—all militate toward the view that the answer is “yes,” that in some sense (which needs to be spelled out carefully!) the physical universe really is a giant Turing machine. Doesn't the non-determinism of QM in fact say that there's f…

I'm a postdoc in theoretical quantum physics and most of my colleagues believe in MWI which is deterministic

Is MWI falsifiable in any way?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#49

Post by lukan »

Beijinger wrote: post #32
lukan wrote: post #7

"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…

"The whole simulation hypothesis seems like a new way to introduce theological concepts with modern tech. Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified." I have bad news for you. There is no proof in Science. :-( The problem is, that if it is possible to simulate us, then the likelihood that we are simulated is much higher, than that we are not. This is a problem! And yes, can be tested. "Stacking Problem". The simulation…

Erm yes, there is proof in science.

Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain, you come up with a hypothesis and test them and verify or dismiss them. This is fundamentally different to religion, where believe and not proof is required.

And if you find, there are convincing hypothesis for the simulation theory, that can be scientifically tested, please go test them. If you are succesful, you will convince people. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying I see no experiment, that can proof or disproof it. But I am open to be convinced with good arguments.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#50

Post by roenxi »

lukan wrote: post #7

"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…

Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified and has no implications, even in theory. It is an academically interesting topic but nothing more.

I mean, say you're a committed Muslim and then one day you discover that the universe is completely simulated. That wouldn't require you to change any of your beliefs at all. God, heaven, hell, and all the good things are probably part of the simulation too so you still have to live like always.

Post reply on HN