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

51–60 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#51

Post by mistermann »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #34
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"non-determinism of QM". Think this is still in doubt. There is the whole branch of physics called 'super determinism' , trying to find the underlying causes of events that look 'undetermined'.

Yes. Do hidden variables and processes exist? The universe could be perfectly deterministic from outside but appear very random here. It's an open question. No one knows the answer. That's why I think it's an interesting question. Personally I find the references to god or theology offensive and distracting. These are perfectly valid questions to ask. They don't imply any kind of biblical god. They don't even imply a…

> We only fall back to creators because we can't imagine that something, or some set of rules, or some arbitrary process, or whatever might Just Exist.

Is this to say that we simulate creators? From where I sit, people on both sides seem[1] absolutely sincere that their version of "reality" is the correct one.

[1] To check, try disagreeing with a few from either side, ask what proof they read before adopting the belief, etc.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#52

Post by afpx »

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…

Does it depend on what type of simulation? For example, if it’s an optimization problem, couldn’t you tell statistically by looking at macroscopic events?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#53

Post by yreg »

Waterluvian wrote: post #12

Is it knowable that we’re living in a simulation or not? Because if it’s not knowable, isn’t any argument for or against just meaningless cherry picking? So I’m wondering what the ways might be that we can definitively know, versus new observations of how this universe works. Even a giant head appearing in the sky telling us it’s a sim would necessarily be reconcilable by changing our models?

You can't prove unknowable things, but you can have bayesian arguments about their probabilities.

For some people it's meaningless, for others it's interesting to speculate.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#54

Post by FrustratedMonky »

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…

The problem is that we have no idea what the physics is off the 'real world'. There is no rule at all that says 'physics inside the simulation' must obey some 'real world physics' also. Nothing. Because we don't have any knowledge of the relationship between the simulation and the 'real'.

The world in Minecraft is the size of 64K Earths (or something). I do not need the amount of energy to create that amount of 'matter', in my laptop to play it.

The Minecraft world has gravity, is huge, and yet, my computer didn't need that amount of energy to simulate it.

Note. I don't think we are in a simulation, and a lot of the arguments for it are weak. But any of the physics based rejections, are in themselves assuming too much about what we know about whatever the outside world is.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#55

Post by somenameforme »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #16
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…

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.

There's a slight "paradox", for lack of a better word. Imagine tomorrow you die, only to 'wake up' and discover it actually was just a simulation. And you're now in some new reality. Well it turns out you haven't really answered anything, because the exact same question still remains of what's the source of this new reality. Turtles all the way down?

And I expect there is probably no answer, because there's quite disconcerting little issue of first existence. Even if you imagine that the matter for a big bang could just materialize out of some weird quantum fluctuation, then you're left to wonder about what created the void, or what created the rules as they exist. You end up with this sort of uncomfortable hand-wavey, well it's just always been this way forever. Even increasingly abstract things like multi-verses don't really manage to reconcile this.

If you think about it enough, it's really quite uncomfortable than "we" (whoever "we" may be) actually exist given this paradox. Because it's a question that intelligent existence may actually never be able to answer, and only testable by the experiment from which nobody returns.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#56

Post by WithinReason »

Karellen wrote: post #46
WithinReason wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

e.g. lossless compression of state space and piecewise evaluation. Better compression = less space, more time

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#57

Post by vidarh »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #16
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…

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.

As an atheist, the simulation argument, or variants about it, is the closest I've come to considering the belief in a "god". I still stick by my atheism on the basis that I don't feel someone simulating us would really meet what we think of as a deity, and in that sense it has even made me see a "god" as less likely, because I'd consider it more likely that if there were to be anything outside our universe it's just more layers of computation, and entities whose power - if any - would be more likely to just be linked to control of a device (the simulator), not inherent to themselves.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#58

Post by Karellen »

b112 wrote: post #44
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…

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 t…

> There are whole regions of space with no actual observer. Those can be swapped to disk,

What disk? Where is this disk?

Suppose the universe contains 10⁸⁰ atoms. And we somehow figure out a way to store 10 bits of information per atom, giving our universe a storage capacity of 10⁸¹

How do you propose to simulate a universe that requires 10⁸¹ + 1 bits to describe? What disk are you going to swap the extra information out to? Where will this disk live - inside or outside of our universe?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#59

Post by FrustratedMonky »

bowsamic wrote: post #43
batch12 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nothing wrong with that.

He did write books, and was cutting edge at some point.

We don't dismiss every scientist who isn't making a ground breaking discovery every year.

Sometimes you want to go on the lecture circuit and relax some.

Post reply on HN