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

171–180 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#171

Post by karmakaze »

lukan wrote: post #153
karmakaze wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1/137

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#172

Post by williamcotton »

newthrow wrote: post #90
williamcotton wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have faith in! To someone who engages with theology, beyond a happy little bedtime story to make me feel comfortable with my own demise, the Simulationists are in the same ballpark, but without the test of time and some important calls to an almost unattainable set…

[flagged]

This war never took place but that the story was passed down to future generations implies that the narrative has a deeper meaning or intent. There has been plenty of pontification on Numbers 31 over the millennia!

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#173

Post by lukan »

karmakaze wrote: post #171
lukan wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1/137

What is that supposed to mean?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#174

Post by chii »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #106
chii wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> at a lower fidelity.

that doesn't need to be true. The simulation could be at "full fidelity" - just slow(er) than their reality.

But it doesn't matter for the simulated persons - they cannot tell the difference.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#175

Post by superposeur »

To the extent that the physical world and consciousness can be modeled as computations (in order to “simulate” on some hardware), the details of the “hardware” running the simulation are totally irrelevant to the occupants of the simulation; only the relational patterns between states of the simulation at different times are relevant. The hardware could run fast or slow; forwards or backwards in “simulation time”; once or multiple times over and over; using grungy calculations or clock time-saving efficient algorithms.

Actually, it’s irrelevant to the occupants of the simulation whether or not the simulation is even “run” or merely has the potential to run. Or, indeed, whether the hardware even exists. Or, indeed, whether we use the word “simulation” instead of “laws of physics” to describe the patterns of relations between simulation states.

It’s hard for me to see how the simulation hypothesis can have any content whatsoever.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#177

Post by theGnuMe »

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?"

The simulation hypothesis is not really about whether or not there is a master programmer but rather a consequence of a computational universe. The more interesting question is whether we live in a digital (computational) universe or not. Wolfram thinks that if we do then there should be a corresponding digital (computational) physics. He also hypothesizes that a universe's complexity should then arise from simple computational processes.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#178

Post by newthrow »

williamcotton wrote: post #172
newthrow wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This war never took place but that the story was passed down to future generations implies that the narrative has a deeper meaning or intent. There has been plenty of pontification on Numbers 31 over the millennia!

[flagged]

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#179

Post by staticman2 »

_yb2s wrote: post #169
staticman2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s very different from being able to say before hand “if the universe is simulated using x bit floating point computation, we will get result 1 in this experiment, and if it has infinite precision as we’d expect from a non heuristic physical universe, we would get result 2.” If you're in the physical universe, every experimental result, no matter how surprising, simply shows you what a physical universe is like. T…

We can formulate and test hypotheses about the nature of our universe via experiment. I'm not talking about the universe "not conforming to expectations" or being "surprising" as evidence of a simulation, but of our ability to form and test very specific hypotheses, where the outcome is expected to be a certain way due to artifacts of certain types of simulation, thereby providing evidence for it. This requires a spe…

In the sense an intelligent design advocate would also claim they can test "specific hypothesis" about god, perhaps.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#180

Post by [deleted] »

lenerdenator wrote: post #85
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?"

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN