Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

santafe.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#21

Post by Borg3 »

ericpauley wrote: post #5
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #2

Oh man, Stephen Wolfram and Jürgen Schmidthuber are probably fuming at the fact that this is called a "new" mathematical framework. It's all very old, and quite conventional, even popular -- not exactly the road not taken. What the author did was use the Physical Church-Turing thesis, and Kleene's second recursion theorem, to show that: (1) If a universe’s dynamics are computable (PCT), and (2) the universe can imple…

It’s also a little silly for the same reasons discussions of theoretical computability often are: time and space requirements. In practice the Universe, even if computable, is so complex that simulating it would require far more compute than physical particles and far more time than remaining until heat death.

Hehe yeah.. For me, its just inverted search for the God. There must be somethink behind it, if its not God, then it must be simulation! Kinda sad, I would expect more from scientist.

The big riddle of Universe is, how all that matter loves to organize itself, from basic particles to Atoms, basic molecues, structured molecues, things and finally live.. Probably unsolvable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt research and ask questions...

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#22

Post by anthk »

mgaunard wrote: post #12

It's starting with the assumption that the simulation would reproduce the universe perfectly; this eliminates a lot of possibilities. Many would expect that the parent universe would be more sophisticated, potentially with more dimensions, that we can only glimpse through artifacts of the simulation.

Also that Universe could use entities similar to hard and soft links (quantum entanglement), memory deduplication and so on.

How many people did we met in the world with similar face appearances and even personalities, almost like you are finding copycats everywhere? Also, it happens as if some kind of face/shape would just have a single personality with minimal differences spread over thousands of lookalikes...

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#24

Post by bananaflag »

HPsquared wrote: post #6
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #2

Oh man, Stephen Wolfram and Jürgen Schmidthuber are probably fuming at the fact that this is called a "new" mathematical framework. It's all very old, and quite conventional, even popular -- not exactly the road not taken. What the author did was use the Physical Church-Turing thesis, and Kleene's second recursion theorem, to show that: (1) If a universe’s dynamics are computable (PCT), and (2) the universe can imple…

I'm no mathematician, but doesn't this come up against Gödel's incompleteness theorem? My brain has that roughly as "If you have a system and a model of that system, but the model is also part of the same system, something something, impossible"

No, this sort of self-reflection is exactly what makes Gödel/Turing/etc impossibility results work ("strange loops" and all that).

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#25

Post by raverbashing »

lioeters wrote: post #23
raverbashing wrote: post #17

We can't even run docker inside docker without making things slower, the simulator hypotheses is frankly ridiculous

That's what a simulated universe running inside Docker would say.

Nobody is going to pay all those docker licenses /s

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#27

Post by jonathanstrange »

Here is one thing I don't understand about these kind of approaches. Doesn't a computational simulation imply that time is discrete? If so, doesn't this have consequences for our currently best physical theories? I understand that the discreteness of time would be far below what can be measured right now but AFAIK it would still makes a difference for physical theories whether time is discrete or not. Or am I mistaken about that? There are similar concerns about space.

By the way, on a related note, I once stumbled across a paper that argued that if real numbers where physically realizable in some finite space, then that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. It sounded convincing but I also lacked the physical knowledge to evaluate that thesis.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#28

Post by Traubenfuchs »

ericpauley wrote: post #5
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #2

Oh man, Stephen Wolfram and Jürgen Schmidthuber are probably fuming at the fact that this is called a "new" mathematical framework. It's all very old, and quite conventional, even popular -- not exactly the road not taken. What the author did was use the Physical Church-Turing thesis, and Kleene's second recursion theorem, to show that: (1) If a universe’s dynamics are computable (PCT), and (2) the universe can imple…

It’s also a little silly for the same reasons discussions of theoretical computability often are: time and space requirements. In practice the Universe, even if computable, is so complex that simulating it would require far more compute than physical particles and far more time than remaining until heat death.

The real universe might be different and far more complex than our simulated reality. Maybe a species that can freely move within 4 or 5 dimensions is simulating our 3D + uni directional time reality just like we „simulate“ reality with Sim City and Sims.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#29

Post by [deleted] »

NoahZuniga wrote: post #8
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #2

Oh man, Stephen Wolfram and Jürgen Schmidthuber are probably fuming at the fact that this is called a "new" mathematical framework. It's all very old, and quite conventional, even popular -- not exactly the road not taken. What the author did was use the Physical Church-Turing thesis, and Kleene's second recursion theorem, to show that: (1) If a universe’s dynamics are computable (PCT), and (2) the universe can imple…

Thanks for this great comment! > He also uses Rice’s theorem (old) to show that there is no uniform measure over the set of "possible universes." I assume a finite uniform measure? Presumably |set| is a uniform measure over the set of "possible universes". Anyway if I understood that correctly, than this is not that surprising? There isn't a finite uniform measure over the real line. If you only consider the possible…

[deleted]

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#30

Post by morpheos137 »

These models get things backwards. The universe is a wave function in logic space. It appears discrete and quantized because integers composed of primes are logically stable information entropy minimal nodes. In other words the universe is the way it is because it depends on math. Math does not depend on the universe. Logic is its own "simulation." Math does not illuminate physics, rather physics illuminates math. This can be shown by the construction of a filter that cleanly sorts prime numbers from composites without trial division but by analysis of the entropic harmonics of integers. In other words what we consider integers are not fundamental but rather emergent properties of the minimal subjunctive of superposition of zero (non existence) and infinity (anything that is possible). By ringing an integer like a bell according to the template provided by the zeta function we can find primes and factor from spectral analysis without division. Just as integers emerge from the wave as stable nodes so do quanta in the physical isomorphism. In other words both integers and quanta are emergent from the underlying wave that is information in tension between the polarity of nonexistence and existence. So what appears discrete or simulated is actually an emergent phenomenon of the subjunctive potential of information constrained by the two poles of possibility.
Post reply on HN