Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested • Hacker News Board

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#61

Post by gliese1337 » Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 6:17 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #60

gliese1337 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the idea that the simulators care is the basis for the standard argument that we're probably in a simulation. After all, it's supposed to be posthumans running simulations of their evolutionary ancestors. I don't know why they would do that, but given that premise, why run simulations of your ancestors if you don't care about your ancestors? Of course, that provides another answer to the problem of pain- that t…

Is the simulation just of us though? Or is the simulation of a much larger portion of the observable universe? We naturally want to be important, but I don't see any particularly compelling reason to think that we are. I don't see any reason at all to assume that if we are in a simulation, it is being run by anything remotely resembling us (or used to resemble us), or indeed by anything at all. Is that such a strange…

It seems to me that's kind of the defining feature of a simulation. If there's no one behind it, if it just exists entirely on its own, then it is the natural universe, not a simulation. Even if it looks computationally-based, that's just The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics at work.

A simulation means "someone made it". They may not be masterminding details of our lives, or our civilization, or even our solar system if they only happen to care about something completely different from that and incomprehensible to us, but nevertheless calling it a simulation implies that a creator at least exists.

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#62

Post by empthought » Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 6:36 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #20

I thought the more plausible theory is we are a projection of another dimension. But pain and suffering seems far too real and horrible for any of this to be fake.

The most plausible theory is that we will go extinct before reaching a "post-human" phase.

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#63

Post by freshhawk » Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 6:56 PM UTC

azakai wrote: post #28

freshhawk wrote: post #14

This strikes me as equivalent to researchers hundreds of years ago saying "well if our universe is a clockwork simulation then we should be able to detect the gears turning by this method". Certainly interesting ... I'm not sure that we could currently understand a single principle of a system capable of simulating our universe.

Well yes, it is equivalent. And they looked more and more carefully, and never found tiny clockwork gears, so that was not supported by the evidence. What they did find were abstract, mechanical laws of physics.

A more apt analogy would have been testing for a specific number of gears with a specific number of teeth in a specific configuration. Choosing very specific hypotheses purely based on your ability to falsify it and no other supporting theory or evidence seems like a low reward strategy.

I'm certainly not trying to argue against pure research in any way.

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#64

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 7:30 PM UTC

gliese1337 wrote: post #61

jlgreco wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the simulation just of us though? Or is the simulation of a much larger portion of the observable universe? We naturally want to be important, but I don't see any particularly compelling reason to think that we are. I don't see any reason at all to assume that if we are in a simulation, it is being run by anything remotely resembling us (or used to resemble us), or indeed by anything at all. Is that such a strange…

It seems to me that's kind of the defining feature of a simulation. If there's no one behind it, if it just exists entirely on its own, then it is the natural universe, not a simulation. Even if it looks computationally-based, that's just The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics at work. A simulation means "someone made it". They may not be masterminding details of our lives, or our civilization, or even our sol…

You are just pulling that concept from the traditional definition of "simulation", but there is no particular justification for doing so.

If we detect evidence of what the author of the paper is calling a "simulation" (that is, our universe is being simulated in a 'meta-universe'), then we know only one thing about the meta-universe: It can simulate ours. We don't know that it supports some sort of "life" of it's own, contains anything with "intent", or contains anything like that at all. We do not know that there are meta-men in the meta-universe.

Perhaps there better terminology for such implications than saying a 'meta universe is simulating our universe', but the fact that we are using that terminology in the meantime does not mean it is reasonable to make the assumptions about it that you are making. Just because we call our universe a "simulation" does not mean that there must therefore be meta-men.

(Also I do not understand the point you are trying to make about it being the "natural universe". If some sort of meta-man made a simulation that we live in, instead of the simulation arising through non-deliberate means in the meta-universe, is his meta-universe any less "natural"? Either way the meta-universe is "natural"; whether meta-men exist or not)

In a nutshell what I am saying is that we should not assume intent unless there is evidence for intent. Evidence for 'simulation' itself should not be misconstrued as evidence for intent; it would be evidence for nothing but 'simulation' itself.

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#65

Post by rymith » Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 9:10 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #23

rymith wrote: post #15

What would be the purpose of a simulation with so much pain and suffering. Where children get raped, flayed, abused, etc... And don't give me any of that matrix crap, that was only to make a flawed concept make just enough sense that you didn't fully think it through until the next bullet time scene. I'm certainly not on the outside paying for this. I have a degenerative bone disease that's caused me to have 6 major…

Very interesting that you can replace 'simulation' with 'God' and your statements are a perfect recitation of 'The Problem of Evil'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Gods and simulators are very equal in my book. The key isn't that I don't believe in either (though it's true that I do not), it that both constructs (god and simulators) being completely absent from any interactions with the human life in any recognizable way, simply are irrelevant. Both are not falsifiable, nor are either provable. It would be akin to me wondering if dragons exist on a planet that orbits V12 of NCG 4203.

Though to be honest, I would give better odds that there are dragons on a planet orbiting V12 of NCG 4203 than either of the above existing.

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#66

Post by dhughes » Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 1:12 AM UTC

mayanksinghal wrote: post #27

dhughes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isaac Asimov's 'The Last Question' answers that.

I feel stupid that I absolutely love this story but have no idea what you are you referring to.

Maybe we are a computer simulation but maybe we are the computer!

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#67

Post by the_cat_kittles » Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 2:25 AM UTC

firlefans wrote: post #55

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't know if it's actually deserving of the title "implausible nonsense", I think its important to remember that stupid is as stupid does, and same goes for smart. Someone isn't smart because they have the trappings of intelligence, its because they did something smart.

"its because they did something smart" So intelligence == 'achievement'? That makes no sense. As for nonsense, ok I'll retract that, it is an interesting but highly implausible topic that gets a large amount of discussion relative to it's likelihood. It's actually just another way of phrasing "Does God exist?" If there was a computer (God) simulating this universe and controlling it, then it'd require a host universe…

I guess its true that you can't just equate intelligence with achievement. In my own life, I think I've increasingly used achievement where I used to use intelligence to gauge how 'smart' someone is. That comment was also trying to get at the annoyingly pervasive belief people seem to have that you must be smart because you are a mathematician, say. As an example, novices might think someone is good at basketball based on how they look on the court- but you wouldn't say someone is good unless they actually had a big positive effect on how often their team won. In general, I guess when I say smart, I mean "good" in some abstract sense.

Re: Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

#68

Post by nsxwolf » Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 3:19 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #60

gliese1337 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the idea that the simulators care is the basis for the standard argument that we're probably in a simulation. After all, it's supposed to be posthumans running simulations of their evolutionary ancestors. I don't know why they would do that, but given that premise, why run simulations of your ancestors if you don't care about your ancestors? Of course, that provides another answer to the problem of pain- that t…

Is the simulation just of us though? Or is the simulation of a much larger portion of the observable universe? We naturally want to be important, but I don't see any particularly compelling reason to think that we are. I don't see any reason at all to assume that if we are in a simulation, it is being run by anything remotely resembling us (or used to resemble us), or indeed by anything at all. Is that such a strange…

That made me thing of a tangent - could the incredible distances between stars and the relatively slow speed of light be intentional, a way of preventing the simulation from grinding to a halt if any of the intelligences ever learn how to travel in space?

Maybe there's not enough resources to completely model everything we see in the sky, so there needs to be some mechanism to throttle exploration.