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

101–110 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#101

Post by Erem »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #83
steve1977 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

If we're just code being executed on some machine, we could be executed on a different machine - one that can move around in "their" world. Basically, getting uploaded into an android frame. (Assuming that their world would even be comprehensible to us; but again, as others have pointed out, so much of this is effectively theological...)

I mostly enjoy this hypothesis because I'm a developer. I like imagining The poor sap that has to deploy us. And what do their logs look like? What does their tech debt look like?

"Hey yeah there's this emergent bug where bad things happen to good people. We would love to fix it but you know the intern wrote the implicated service in Haskell so we would have to rewrite it in Go and nobody has time for that this quarter."

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#102

Post by photochemsyn »

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…

As far as the utilitarian argument in favor of religious belief goes, the simulation hypothesis doesn't seem very useful. The utilitarian argument includes the notion that 'religious texts are fairy tales intended to teach moral behavior to children, and that were invented by humans alone' (a view that some find offensive, oh well).

Simulation arguments are a useful concept regardless, since a little thinking will reveal that there are an infinite number of such metaphysical theories on the nature of reality that are by definition untestable via scientific experimental methods. A perfect simulation is undetectable, comparable to claims that supernatural beings (or UFO aliens) are constantly intevening in our physical reality, only they're careful to only do it when nobody is looking.

Thus if we accept these metaphysical theories (including all religions and the doctrine of atheism) are equally (in)valid as they cannot be tested, we are left with their moral doctrines as the only basis to distinguish them from one another, value wise. We might as well include the moral doctrines included in literary works (e.g. Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion could form the basis of a new religion).

However, if we look at the simulation theory from a moral perspective - well, it's problematic, in that it could be interpreted as support for the viewpoint of a sociopathic megalomaniacal narcissist. If you're the only real person in the simulation, and all others are non-player-characters, then it doesn't matter what you do to them... hey wait is this why the simulation hypothesis is so popular in the tech bro billionaire world?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#103

Post by jncfhnb »

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…

Pascal’s wager seems so… idk, unenlightened? If you start from a status quo of feeling comfortable with your obliteration, it sounds kind of ridiculous to ask god to grant you an eternal life of heaven. Have we not concluded that eternal life begets meaninglessness? Are we really imagining ourselves to be eternally pleasure seeking or revelries entities? Like what does that actually mean?

It seems, frankly, more in line with in physical universe western (and other) aesthetics to politely decline going to heaven and instead act according to your personal integrity and humble satisfaction.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#104

Post by argiopetech »

jncfhnb wrote: post #94
slowmovintarget wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic theist (aka deist).

Gnostic Theist: My God exists.

Agnostic Theist: I accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me

Agnostic Atheist: I don't accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me.

Gnostic Atheist: Deities do not exist.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#105

Post by imtringued »

If the fabric of reality is a simulation, then it is just a transformation of actual reality.

If the human brain could grow micro processor cells in addition to regular brain cells, it could simulate a neuron using the micro processor to achieve exactly the same goal.

If that is the case, what is the difference between a real human with a biological brain, a human with a cybernetic brain and a human with a virtual biological brain? Assuming they behave identically, there is no difference. A perfect simulation then is just a roundabout identity function.

The only interesting consequence could be that unsimulated reality somehow differs from simulated reality.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#106

Post by Night_Thastus »

chii wrote: post #62
crowdyriver wrote: post #6

If we are living in a simulation, where does the simulation live in?

Another simulation. It's turtles all the way up and all the way down. We, too, one day, will do a simulation, and thus the depth continues on indefinitely.

We already do, they're just much more primitive than our reality and very limited in the scope of what they simulate.

If we're in a simulation, it's possible the same is true. That our reality only is a simulation of some parts of the reality above ours, and at a lower fidelity.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#107

Post by fallingfrog »

I think the idea is rather silly. Look: we live one one little planet and right above us in the sky we can see that there are some 22 sextillion other planets, mostly empty gas giants. So if your question is “why are they simulating earth”, you’re way, way off base. What you need to explain is why someone is simulating 22 sextillion random gas giants. When you phrase it that way the question seems absurd.

On the other hand, if you think only the earth is real or only you are real and the rest is being faked, then you’re engaging in the most self indulgent solipsism imaginable. If there is a god, for them to place 22 sextillion worlds full of nothing right where we can plainly see them, but never reach them, is a pretty damn effective way to say “you’re not that fucking important.”

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#108

Post by whatshisface »

argiopetech wrote: post #104
jncfhnb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic theist (aka deist). Gnostic Theist: My God exists. Agnostic Theist: I accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me Agnostic Atheist: I don't accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me. Gnostic Atheist: Deities do not exist.

The operators of a computer simulation are not deities in the sense that most atheists would say they could prove didn't exist.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#109

Post by jncfhnb »

argiopetech wrote: post #104
jncfhnb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic theist (aka deist). Gnostic Theist: My God exists. Agnostic Theist: I accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me Agnostic Atheist: I don't accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me. Gnostic Atheist: Deities do not exist.

Eh, no. There’s an important semantic distinction between an external deity and an internal deity. An external deity is not present. It is not knowable. It is for all practical purposes, irrelevant. An internal deity is like Christian god. Perhaps you consider it to be the originator of the universe, perhaps you don’t. Perhaps they’re “in” the universe or not. But the important bit is that it’s “there”, with the power to influence or at least to justify a sense of spirituality.

There’s no form of rational thinking that confidently concludes there’s no external deities. If you peel back the layers of agnosticism and atheism, they’re concerned with internal deities. Entities that are aesthetically deity like and have some sort of relevance that presents structure beyond observable physics.

Typical atheism, even if not often articulated as such, believes that the world is what it is. External deities are intrinsically a toss up and acknowledging that does not make one conventionally agnostic.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#110

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

argiopetech wrote: post #104
jncfhnb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic theist (aka deist). Gnostic Theist: My God exists. Agnostic Theist: I accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me Agnostic Atheist: I don't accept the concept of deity(ies), but it's not relevant to me. Gnostic Atheist: Deities do not exist.

Atheism does not mean that you believe deities do not exist. It means you do not have the belief that they do. The absence of a belief in something does not imply a belief in the absence it.

A definitive belief that deities do not exist is sometimes called strong atheism.

Post reply on HN