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

61–70 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#61

Post by Beijinger »

lukan wrote: post #49
Beijinger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"Erm yes, there is proof in science."

Well, then you know more than me. And I have a STEM PhD.

" But I am open to be convinced with good arguments."

I told you. Stacking argument. There is a paper about it, I can't find it right now. And that something is not testable right now (Think Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory) or String Theory does not mean that it can't be tested in the future. The paper made a prediction when it can be tested.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#63

Post by Beijinger »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #54
Beijinger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 'matt…

For a start, mathematics would likely be the same.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#64

Post by bowsamic »

pera wrote: post #48
bowsamic wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure. Most likely not with current technology. In my experience the reason most people like it is because a lot of great quantum physics has come out of studying MWI (that is also compatible with all other interpretations), such as a lot of progress in decoherence and things like Quantum Darwinism. I try and keep a distance from these things so I don't know that much about it. I don't work on it directly so my policy is that I won't believe in any particular interpretation unless there is good evidence for it. That said, from what I know about them, MWI is one of the better ones, I certainly prefer it to Bohmian mechanics.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#65

Post by nonrandomstring »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #18

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 very much for the reasons I mention in this paragraph [0]

  "A century ago Nietzsche said that after we killed God we would
  search for him everywhere, tearing apart every institution and
  everything we love and believe in. Finally, we found computer
  technology. We now bow before it and throw onto the sacrificial pyre
  our time, our dignity and our fellow humans. Computers cannot be
  wrong. Even if good men and women must die to maintain that belief."
Is real?

Let's say you are in a temple surrounded by a hundred sword wielding devout believers who will cut off your head and play football with it if you offend them.

Right there, is very real. Whether you personally believe or not, there is a real situation, in which you are not in control and your opinion, logic, reason and "rightness" as as good as irrelevant.

Other people make real there.

We are in a world where people believe in computers and digital technology. It's more than just a scientific question, it's become an ideology with laws to back it up. This is no different to pre-Enlightenment Christianity or Caliphate.

You had better believe in the transcendence of cybernetic systems.. or else! [1,2]

[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/postoffice/

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00168-8

[2] https://www.bcs.org/articles-opinion-and-research/computer-a...

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#66

Post by bowsamic »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #59
bowsamic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree but it really upsets some people when someone else gets off the academic treadmill

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#67

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

vidarh wrote: post #22
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…

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…

There is no definition of what "simulation" actually means let alone the definition of escape. You're just starting with something you know, ie simulating something on a computer or other device and assuming there is something comprehensible outside it, just like how our reality exists outside a computer simulation. But consider the reality that software exists in and what use our reality is to it. It cannot exist in it (outside of the computer) let alone "comprehend" it.

In any possible "simulation" we live in, "outside" isn't going to entail any elements of what you perceive inside your (created) reality, just like software, other than with convenient assumptions to prop up the idea.

It may be a fun "mind wank" but don't take it seriously, because it doesn't make any sense.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#68

Post by k__ »

azornathogron wrote: post #14
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.

Regardless of speed, presumably the simulator must hold at least as much state as the simulation has, and that would put some kind of bound on "size".

I see.

So, the universe is assumed to be finite in either time or space?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#69

Post by nertirs »

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 there are no qualities, that distinguish a simulation from reality. For all we know, we might as well be living in the worst simulation with unrealistic physics and poor graphics, which was made by a regular student on a weekend, who received a C- for effort.

If the simulation is already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles. With access to all the particles in the universe humanity could easily simulate every single particle in a smaller universe at a high tick rate. A simulated humanity could even easily simulate every particle in a bigger universe, if we remove the requirement to render the world at a high tick rate.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#70

Post by Beijinger »

nertirs wrote: post #69
Beijinger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 there are no qualities, that distinguish a simulation from reality. For all we know, we might as well be living in the worst simulation with unrealistic physics and poor graphics, which was made by a regular student on a weekend, who received a C- for effort. If the simulation is already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particle…

"If the simulation is ,already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles"

That would be very unlikely, again, mathematics would likely be the same and this limits options. The guys simulation us would be bound to mathematics and limits (e.g. computational crunching power).

In "grand theft auto" you also just simulated/render, what is necessary at a given moment. By the way, the rendering would be a nice interpretation for the "observer" of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics :-)

Post reply on HN