Yeah right. In infinite Turing machines maybe. If it’s finite, it’s impossible to simulate something larger with the same fidelity
New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
61–70 of 112 posts
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#62These 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. Th…
Think the leakage is if the simulation were a manufactured emulation, like humans trying to mirror natural laws through technology. An emergent simulation, nature borne out of nature, may not have those same defects.
We can prove that the "defects" we see emerge naturally from the entropic optimization of information subject to the superposition of being and not being. Between nothing and everything the universe exists in an entropic gradient.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#63Oh 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 issue with that in terms of the simulation argument, is that the simulation argument doesn't require a complete simulation in either space or time.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#64Funny people still call that "simulation hypothesis". At some point they should try to do some Past lives regressions or Out of body experience (astral projection). Then they'll know for sure what this reality is about.
Yeah, from what I heard, that's how scientology recruits true believers.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#65Oh 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"
Godel's incompleteness theorem is about the limits of proof / mathematical knowledge. Algebra is still useful and true, even though the proof shows it must be incomplete.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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... Isn't that 'just' the laws of nature + the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Life is the ultimate increaser of entropy, because for all the order we create we just create…
Yeah, agreed. The actual real riddle is consciousness. Why does it seems some configurations of this matter and energy zap into existence something that actually (allegedly) did not exist in its prior configuration.
There is no objective evidence consciousness exists as distinct from an information process.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 an…
For me the biggest riddle is: why something instead of nothing ? That's the question that prevent me from being atheist and shift me to agnosticism.
There is both in superposition.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 issue with that in terms of the simulation argument, is that the simulation argument doesn't require a complete simulation in either space or time.
It also doesn't require a super-universe with identical properties and constraints.
There's no guarantee their logic is the same as our logic. It needs to be able to simulate our logic, but that doesn't mean it's defined or bound by it.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#69I wonder if there’s a concept akin to Shannon Entropy that dictates the level of detail a simulation can provide given a ratio of bits to something. Although presumably any level of bits could be simulated given more time.
An explanation of the observer effect may be that the universe is lazily evaluated at the moment of observation. Outside of that experienced reality, it might as well be all a cloud of latent possibilities, rough outlines and low-res details, enough for a plausible simulation.
Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis
#70“ Wolpert shows that this isn’t required by the mathematics: simulations do not have to degrade, and infinite chains of simulated universes remain fully consistent within the theory.”
How is this consistent with the second law of thermodynamics? If there is one universe containing an infinite number of simulations (some of which simulate the base universe) wouldn’t there be a limit to how much computation could be contained? By its very nature a chain of simulations would grow exponentially with time, rapidly accelerating heat death. That may not require the simulations to degrade but it puts a hard limit on how many could be created.