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

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#71

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

morpheos137 wrote: post #66
estearum wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no objective evidence of anything at all.

It all gets filtered through consciousness.

"Objectivity" really means a collection of organisms having (mostly) the same subjective experiences, and building the same models, given the same stimuli.

Given that less intelligent organisms build simpler models with poorer abstractions and less predictive power, it's very naive to assume that our model-making systems aren't similarly crippled in ways we can't understand.

Or imagine.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#72

Post by asplake »

GistNoesis wrote: post #50

The problem of computers is the problem of time : How to obtain a consistent causal chain ! The classical naive way of obtaining a consistent causal chain, is to put the links one after the other following the order defined by the simulation time. The funnier question is : can it be done another way ? With the advance of generative AI, and things like diffusion model it's proven that it's possible theoretically (univ…

I’m not sure Einstein would allow your concept of “simulation time”. Events are only partially ordered.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#74

Post by skeledrew »

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.

You're predicating on particles, heat death, etc as you understand it being applicable to any potential universe. Such rules are only known to apply in this universe.

A universe is simply a function, and a function can be called multiple times with the same/different arguments, and there can be different functions taking the same or different arguments.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#75

Post by empiricus »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #56
empiricus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "something reasonable, that reality is virtual"? In many ways, by definition, reality is what is real not virtual. I have other questions, but this is a good start :)

When I say that reality isn't "real" (which is awkward for sure) what I'm referring to is that we have a perception of space and time which is absolute and inviolable, when it's likely space and time (as we understand them) are artifacts of our perceptual lens, and "reality" is based on something more akin to consensus than immutable laws. From this perspective you could view physics more as a communication/consisten…

Hm, from what I know about physics, time and space are actually much more absolute and inviolable than our imperfect perceptions. the laws are quite different than our intuition, but everything is water-tight and there is no room for any deviation. the smallest of deviations would mean multiple nobel prizes, so ppl are searching really hard to find any, without success. On the other hand, if we talk about our perception, the things we see around us are of course a virtual reality constructed by our brain to model the input from our sensors, but this is normal because there is no alternative. But it seems to me you are saying smth different?

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#76

Post by squibonpig »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #39
estearum wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd argue that it's not that complicated. That if something meets the below five criteria, we must accept that it is conscious: (1) It maintains a persisting internal model of an environment, updated from ongoing input. (2) It maintains a persisting internal model of its own body or vehicle as bounded and situated in that environment. (3) It possesses a memory that binds past and present into a single temporally exte…

I don't think any of these need to lead to qualia for any obvious reason. It could be a p-zombie why not.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#77

Post by thegrim000 »

Once again, discussion around the simulation hypothesis that for some reason assumes the simulating universe has the exact same laws of physics / reality as the simulated universe. Assuming that the simulated universe can use their mathematics to describe/constrain the simulator universe. It makes no sense to me.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#78

Post by morpheos137 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #71
morpheos137 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no objective evidence consciousness exists as distinct from an information process.

There is no objective evidence of anything at all. It all gets filtered through consciousness. "Objectivity" really means a collection of organisms having (mostly) the same subjective experiences, and building the same models, given the same stimuli. Given that less intelligent organisms build simpler models with poorer abstractions and less predictive power, it's very naive to assume that our model-making systems ar…

That's a hypothesis but the alternate hypothesis that consciousness is not well defined is equally valid at this point. Occam's razor suggests consciousness doesn't exist since it isn't necessary and isn't even mathematically or physically definable.

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#79

Post by helf »

nick__m wrote: post #52
Borg3 wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

[dead]

Re: New mathematical framework reshapes debate over simulation hypothesis

#80

Post by le-mark »

lioeters wrote: post #69
le-mark wrote: post #43

I 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.

This would allow for a dds attack on reality where a bunch of simulants attempt to perform computationally expensive observations at the same time.
Post reply on HN