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

Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

huffingtonpost.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#101

Post by n3rdy »

rdmcfee wrote: post #68

I wonder if the civilization creating the simulation would have motivations beyond just doing this because they can. Perhaps with the benefits of a vastly accelerated timescale a simulation could be used for predictive purposes. As for simulations within simulations. If we are in a simulation and our "program" is permitted to run long enough by it's creators we will most certainly find out :)

IMO one other motivation would be a safe way to create a strong AI, for both predictive purposes, development of new technologies, and medical advancements.

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#102

Post by XorNot »

jerf wrote: post #76
visarga wrote: post #61

That and the Finely Tuned Universe Paradox (the Goldilocks Enigma) is why I can't easily consider myself an atheist. I mean, chances are, this universe is "intelligently designed", in the most literal sense. I call it the "Alien God Hypothesis". It's probable that a race of aliens has mastered the "world creation mechanism", either by simulation or by physical hacking (who knows, maybe they can control black holes an…

I have often thought that if 20th century science tried to ram home the logical necessity of atheism, 21st century science rams home the logical necessity of agnosticism being the ground level, so to speak. If we, tiny as we still are, can even conceive of a practical way to simulate a universe (and what is truly the difference between "simulate" and "create" in the end?), how can we in good conscience fully rule out…

Agnosticism has nothing meaningful to say about this situation, because it claims to give equal weight to totally unfounded claims ("it's definitely yahweh").

Atheists would rightly consider the evidence, conclude there was a creator, but give it no due reverence because they would conclude (rightly) that none is morally due.

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#103

Post by batgaijin »

specialist wrote: post #87
batgaijin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the most interesting part of the Matrix trilogy was when Neo used his powers in the 'real' world; specifically stopping the drones and being able to see despite losing his eyesight.

Totally. I expected the simulation within a simulation, turtles all the way down, plot twist. My favorite theory was that all the humans were passengers on a generational seed ship traveling to the next star, kept in near stasis to keep them alive and mostly sane during the millennial transit. That would have played nicely with The Architect's explanation that in the perfect simulated world, humans went insane. So Th…

I remember seeing the trailer for Reloaded and hoping that they would give the red pill to an AI.

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#104

Post by [deleted] »

benhamner wrote: post #38
brodney wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you?

Are they using a pseudo-random number generator with a set seed, or is there a better source of randomness? ;) I treat free will as an assumption: - If we are, in fact, predestined, assuming I have free will doesn't hurt or matter. - If we do have free will, I'm applying that free will to make decisions based on a correct assumption - If we do have free will and I had assumed we were predestined, this could have wors…

[deleted]

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#106

Post by marblar »

XorNot wrote: post #98
endtime wrote: post #35

I think it's a bit silly to try to infer things about the computer that could be simulating our universe based on things internal to the simulation. Many of our fictions don't have the same laws of physics as we do.

It's a hypothesis - namely, that the entities running the simulation are trying to simulate their own universe to make deductions and discoveries about it. Therefore, our universe would be a reasonable facsimile of there's in most respects. Which has the implication that their may be limitations on their computational substrates which required workarounds or optimizations, or as the lattice QCD case points out - whic…

It makes perfect sense, if you require the speed of light to be the same in all frames of reference.

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#107

Post by tantalor »

XorNot wrote: post #98
endtime wrote: post #35

I think it's a bit silly to try to infer things about the computer that could be simulating our universe based on things internal to the simulation. Many of our fictions don't have the same laws of physics as we do.

It's a hypothesis - namely, that the entities running the simulation are trying to simulate their own universe to make deductions and discoveries about it. Therefore, our universe would be a reasonable facsimile of there's in most respects. Which has the implication that their may be limitations on their computational substrates which required workarounds or optimizations, or as the lattice QCD case points out - whic…

Yet our universe is quite good at solving the three body problem.

Would you take that as evidence that it does not computate discretely?

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#108

Post by tantalor »

JackFr wrote: post #59

"The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened." That sounds distinctly like Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God, and thus likely…

Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

(no comment, just providing context)

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#109

Post by tantalor »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #28

Or the less click-baity headline: "Physicists to Test if Universe is Computable"

Of course it's computable. Planets aren't going to orbit by themselves; something has to add up all those force vectors for every molecule everywhere.

I think the question is whether the compution is discrete (i.e., cheats) or is everywhere continuous.

Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

#110

Post by [deleted] »

specialist wrote: post #87
batgaijin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the most interesting part of the Matrix trilogy was when Neo used his powers in the 'real' world; specifically stopping the drones and being able to see despite losing his eyesight.

Totally. I expected the simulation within a simulation, turtles all the way down, plot twist. My favorite theory was that all the humans were passengers on a generational seed ship traveling to the next star, kept in near stasis to keep them alive and mostly sane during the millennial transit. That would have played nicely with The Architect's explanation that in the perfect simulated world, humans went insane. So Th…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN