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

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#151

Post by andrewflnr »

thwarted wrote: post #122
andrewflnr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All our experience with computational sandboxes so far is that preventing information leaks or escapes is extremely hard. I believe this is due to the path-dependent nature of our hardware architecture, not anything fundamental. x86 is not really designed with virtualization in mind. Theoretically, perfect airtight simulation is the primary ability of computers, and we're just too sloppy to exploit it properly. Ano…

Can entities inside the simulation get info about your CPU architecture? (From HAKMEM): Item 154 (Bill Gosper): The myth that any given programming language is machine independent is easily exploded by computing the sum of powers of 2. If the result loops with period = 1 with sign +, you are on a sign-magnitude machine. If the result loops with period = 1 at -1, you are on a twos-complement machine. If the result loo…

> path-dependent nature of our hardware architecture, not anything fundamental

Anyway, there's no reason entities in a physics simulation would have such direct access to the primitives of the underlying computer, and trying to crash your host simulation does not seem like a reliable, healthy, or in any other way advisable approach to finding out if you're in one.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#152

Post by karmakaze »

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 can't be disproved, but there could be some things that are possible. For one thing if the simulation isn't perfect, it might be possible for there to be leaks. Think of things like Rowhammer or VMs that are not perfectly isolated. If we can somehow model the certain aspects of the simulation, we could possibly make predictions or learn new things about our 'physics'.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#153

Post by lukan »

karmakaze wrote: post #152
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 can't be disproved, but there could be some things that are possible. For one thing if the simulation isn't perfect, it might be possible for there to be leaks. Think of things like Rowhammer or VMs that are not perfectly isolated. If we can somehow model the certain aspects of the simulation, we could possibly make predictions or learn new things about our 'physics'.

Well, by definition everything that cannot be disproved, is theoretical possible. (Just like god)

But I see no reason to assume such a scenario to begin with. Are there any indications at all, it is a simulation? Then I would see a reason to figure out complicated experiments, that might hint at something. But I don't. And I see no convincing experiments or any solid theory at all, by those who propose that theory.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#154

Post by mistermann »

me_me_me wrote: post #112
mistermann wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though? Or does a different standard apply to certain claims, like cultural axioms?

No, no, no. I don't have to prove your claim to be wrong. YOU have to prove your claim to be right. You are making extraordinary claims that is at odd with everyday observable lives we live in. If you claims someone was walking on water, its not my job to prove you wrong!

I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting!

I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof, are certain claims off limits to challenge for some reason, and can that reason be shared publicly?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#155

Post by deepfriedchokes »

dekhn wrote: post #114
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?"

and the next question is "how do I build a device that breaks out of the simulation and lets me interact with the operators" even if, conceptually, it's more likely we are but ants to giants and cannot concieve of the meanings behind their activities.

To escape just create a new simulation with admin privileges and the host file system mounted inside, and use that to escape the first simulation to the host.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#156

Post by jncfhnb »

JohnFen wrote: post #131
jncfhnb wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thinking is useful for rejecting others who are pushing specific beliefs, but is demonstrably flawed for making conclusions about things that are intrinsically impossible to observe.

The thing is that it isn't a conclusion at all -- it's more of a suspension of arriving at a conclusion due to a lack of evidence supporting one.

It “should” be

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#157

Post by 303uru »

mshron wrote: post #78
narush wrote: post #37

The OG Nick Bostrom argument [1] makes an argument for simulation theory with some reasonably simple math you can see in the paper with only a few variables: - `f_p` - Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage - `f_I` - Fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations - `N_I` - Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a…

One of Aaronson's arguments in the article boils down to the idea that running a full universe simulation (without cheating) on a universe with the same physics as ours may just not be possible computationally; it seems physically plausible that you need a universe to compute a universe. If that's true, then the simulators would need to be running in a different kind of universe than ours... in which case "ancestor s…

Well, yes, quantum physics says that's true. Our universe is the minimal requirements necessary to run our universe. There could be tricks, for instance maybe you only simulate at fine grain the universe near an observer. But still, to simulate our granularity you need a simulation of equal (or greater) granularity. There's the trick, it's conceivable that the simulator exists in a universe with more dimensionality.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#158

Post by neuralRiot »

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.

We, as humans always had the curiosity of where we do come from, what “force” moves the world and where we go , as some new concepts emerge we try to solve those questions with them, be it the stars, the steam machine, electricity and computers. This is simply because we don’t know what we don’t know.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#159

Post by euroderf »

dekhn wrote: post #114
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?"

and the next question is "how do I build a device that breaks out of the simulation and lets me interact with the operators" even if, conceptually, it's more likely we are but ants to giants and cannot concieve of the meanings behind their activities.

Is this a rhetorical question formulated by a near-self-aware A.I.?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#160

Post by rizzom5000 »

orwin wrote: post #119
lenerdenator wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, the origin beliefs in this case aren't really faith. Let me frame that as questions: do you: - Believe that we will be able to create a true AI, with self-consicousness? - Believe that we will some day have enough energy and compute power to create a simulation that could contains billions of those consciousness? - Believe that if we are able to do so, we will do it (aka no governmental body will prevent a simula…

I also don't have an absolute opinion, but the math of the simulation hypothesis does appear to check out and it's not difficult to believe, scientifically, that intelligences dramatically superior to human-level are possible.

(1) is likely achievable if we gain a better understanding of biology and the human nervous system, which seems likely given a timeline of continuous scientific progress. (2) is even easier for me to grasp as we already know how much energy the human brain uses and we have billions of them now. So far we're not aware of any serious show stoppers for this scenario, but we might be talking timelines of 100's of years.

Post reply on HN