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

91–100 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#91

Post by quench »

lukan wrote: post #74
Beijinger wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 p…

Are you seriously arguing, that there is no such a thing as scientific proof? I think I stated clearly the philosophical limitations of that "Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain" but that still makes proofs a scientific thing. "Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory" And Einsteins theory was indeed controversial at first, but it was a solid piece of work, that indeed turned out to be tru…

The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science. The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof. A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it.

So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion

There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened.

So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#92

Post by ricardo81 »

I humour the idea that we probably are in one, and that its creator(s) are asking the same questions like us, like if there is free will.

If the idea of new universes being spawned from black holes is a thing, and the Hawking radiation emitted from them is somehow measurable, it would be interesting to see if unexpected data is returned! Sod's law it would take the age of our own universe to find out, hopefully it runs quicker for the super user.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#93

Post by lucozade »

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…

> Doesn't the non-determinism of QM in fact say that there's fundamentally an issue with computability?

I don't see why it should mean that in the theoretical sense. In the sense that it could signal that we are in a simulation that has a precision limitation ie it shows the limit of the computability of the simulation, then that seems quite plausible.

In fact I've argued before that a universe that has a consistent set of (relatively) straightforward rules, with a lot of symmetries, and a precision limit, would probably be hallmarks of a simulated universe. Because it would save on compute assuming that the simulator has vast but finite resources to run the simulation.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#94

Post by jncfhnb »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #81
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…

I loved Stephen Wolfram's answer to that. He did a recent interview with Brian Greene and Brian asked him his take on the simulation question. Stephen replied that he always found it amusing that self-professed atheists would ask the simulation question because the next obvious question is "Who's simulation is it? Who's operating the computers running such a simulation?"

Doesn’t matter. Atheists are generally comfortable with the concept of a fully external deity concept because who gives a shit.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#95

Post by jncfhnb »

afpx wrote: post #52
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?

No, that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t map simulated universes to your conception of current algorithms.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#96

Post by Erem »

gavinray wrote: post #88
lenerdenator wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything that you've seen over the last, eh, 15 years in the tech industry seems to be a bunch of rationalists (who often tend to be non-religious) trying to reconstruct the irrational institutions of spirituality. Simulation theory is basically positing there's a higher power. Eternal life has been replaced with efforts to digitize the human consciousness for indefinite storage. Pilgrimages have been replaced with…

In what form does subscribing to the simulation theory imply "higher power"? Oxford defines the term as "a god or divine being." Why is it so absurd to think that there have existed or do exist beings with more intelligence and computational resources than humans? It seems MORE absurd to me to think that, across all of the infinite universe(s), humans are the only intelligent, self-aware creature capable of scientifi…

I mean an entity that created the coordinate system and all the constants and laws that allow particles to exist and move is effectively divine with respect to the lowly inhabitants therein right?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#97

Post by lenerdenator »

gavinray wrote: post #88
lenerdenator wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything that you've seen over the last, eh, 15 years in the tech industry seems to be a bunch of rationalists (who often tend to be non-religious) trying to reconstruct the irrational institutions of spirituality. Simulation theory is basically positing there's a higher power. Eternal life has been replaced with efforts to digitize the human consciousness for indefinite storage. Pilgrimages have been replaced with…

In what form does subscribing to the simulation theory imply "higher power"? Oxford defines the term as "a god or divine being." Why is it so absurd to think that there have existed or do exist beings with more intelligence and computational resources than humans? It seems MORE absurd to me to think that, across all of the infinite universe(s), humans are the only intelligent, self-aware creature capable of scientifi…

If there's a simulation and we as a species are living in it, and bound by its rules (laws of physics, etc.) then you get into the question of who made said simulation with the rules that constrain us. Since this simulator sysadmin has control over us in ways we cannot comprehend or push back against in a meaningful way, I'd say it counts as a higher power.

Since its existence cannot currently be proven false through empirical means, belief in its existence relies on faith.

A person who believes in simulation theory in which someone created and administrates the simulation can be said to believe in a higher power than humanity, on faith.

It's a creation myth as explained by a bunch of engineering majors who never bothered to pay attention during their anthropology classes as freshmen.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#98

Post by jncfhnb »

Karellen wrote: post #58
b112 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lazy algorithm and generator functions

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#99

Post by jncfhnb »

randomopining wrote: post #89

The Simulation thing is one of the biggest pseudo-science discussions ever. What exactly would be the difference between a simulation and the "real world"? Nobody ever says anyting about that. It makes the entire question preposterous.

People ask that question every time

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#100

Post by jprd »

williamcotton wrote: post #80
runlaszlorun wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, I don’t know much about Jesuits. Is this common in their beliefs or are you just mentioning that you yourself came to these conclusions? Just curious for my own sake.

It is common enough that it came out of the mouth of a priest during a theology lecture! Edit: It is still astonishing to me that they let these hippies into the papacy!

PESRONAL OPINION AND EXPERIENCE:

I was SO LUCKY, growing up Irish-American Catholic, that I had so many local parish Priests that were Jesuits. THEY ECOURAGED QUESTIONING FAITH. Open Q&A, without saying a dogmatic response - sparking discussion instead.

These cats allowed myself and my peers the latitude to poke holes in all of it, pontificate (apologies on the pun) on our personal viewpoints and challenge any conflicts in Dogma or texts.

Jesuits help combine the scientific reality of our experience with the mystical / religious in a non-judgmental way (IMHO). Pretty powerful and not as evangelical as they may have been as an order in the past.

Post reply on HN