If this theory proves true, it also proves the existence of "god" in the form of a programmer.
Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
181–190 of 211 posts
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bostrom's postulates are exceedingly bad. His assumptions rely to much on the isotropy of properties of the one "real" existence and the simulated ones. I would expect, statistically, that there would be far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1" over the more "real…
> It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error. What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'? > far more universes simulated that have properties that ar…
The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#183Coincidentally, Science of Discworld IV just came out last week.
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#184It seems to me that the primary purpose of such a simulation would be to generate a form of artificial intelligence. Maybe at some point it takes the form of a sentient consciousness. Who can judge whether or not an intelligence is artificial? With sufficient complexity it would be indistinguishable.
If I wanted to create an AI, I would probably follow a similar strategy to evolution. It would be beneficial to have many iterations occurring and interacting all at once to speed up the process. Having the AI develop it's own complexity would save incredible amounts of programming time. It would also make the intelligence unique and have a different perspective.
Create a system for replication (reproduction) that also introduces an exchange of components (genes) with other iterations of the program. Maybe add a chance for random mutations at this stage. Have a way of transferring knowledge, experience and ideas (memes, mirror neurons, sensory inputs - language will develop evolutionarily). A lot will still be learned through trial and error in each instance, especially at lower complexity levels. Look at how a baby learns. It's similar to current machine learning. Limit the amount of time that any single instance can run, and have earlier more primitive instances have a faster roll over time to work out the negative traits faster. There must be predatory characteristics (in instances as well as the environment) to enforce survival of the fittest.
Why would you want to make an AI? Maybe it's to solve problems that you can't figure out. Maybe it's to do work that you don't want to do. We could be a simulation that's solving the problems of another civilization. Maybe we just create their entertainment for them. How can we solve global warming? If we could simulate a planet just like ours and have time pass at a faster rate, we could eventually run enough iterations to find a solution. Or maybe simulations are used to do research and develop new technologies. Want to develop cold fusion? Let a machine figure it out by running simulations that generate intelligence and introduce the need for sources of efficient power generation (interplanetary travel and survival instinct for example). Solutions would be transferable since you would presumably create a copy of your own environment and rules, and the language used to reach the solution is irrelevant since it all just boils down to math. Or maybe they're just lonely? Who wants to be the only sentient being in existence.
What happens when the AI that was created figures out that the easiest way for it to solve its problems is to create an AI and have it do all the work? Visually I think it would probably be similar to a fractal. Infinite.
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#185I 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…
I understand the hypothesis. I am even aware of acausal game-theoretic arguments that people at our stage of technological development may be disproportionately likely to be simulated.
I didn't mean to say that this isn't an interesting line of inquiry, just that I don't think we can possibly consider the result conclusive either way. I think it's reasonable to re-weight one's beliefs to an extent based on the outcome, but not so far as to adopt one possibility as "a belief" and discard the other.
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is a somewhat poor rephrasing of a more solid argument from this paper: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf Anyway, your objection here isn't actually relevant as far as I can tell. It's a probabilistic argument about the number of real minds vs. the number of simulated minds, and the bulk of the "proof" is in demonstrating that, under certain assumptions, the number of simulated minds would b…
The objection is totally relevant because you cannot calculate probabilities if you don't know the number of real universes, the probability of life arising from non-life, etc. I would argue, using that line of reasoning that it is more likely that we would be a dream of a sentient entity rather than a simulation of one if his probabilistic assumptions are taken as probable.
Dreams only last a few hours, so that's not really a possibility. If you are proposing we are the "dreams" of a sentient and extremely advanced machine, then that is hardly different from saying that we are just simulated.
And I'm pretty sure the numbers you mentioned--like the number of real universes, the probability of life arising from non-life--really don't come into it at all. Skimming over the paper, none of that stuff seems to come up at all. Again, this isn't about universes inside universes (the news article phrased the argument poorly).
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A-theism is generally understood to mean the confident proclamation that there is no deity. "Agnosticism has nothing meaningful to say" is, frankly, my point; we thought we could confidently proclaim the impossibility of a deity in the 20th century, and now we can not honestly. As for the 'correct' conclusion that none is due, that is itself an awfully confident statement about a deity you know little about, even whe…
Someone running a simulation you're in is not a deity, just another person in a position of great power.
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error. What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'? > far more universes simulated that have properties that ar…
The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
> The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity).
But the 'real universe' appears discrete on the smallest level, and I don't believe physicists will ultimately settle on a theory in which two completely different sorts of theories take over at different regimes and the macro-scale theory is not reducible, even in principle, to derivations and predictions of the micro-scale theory. The quantum theories will eventually predict the relativity-scale results./
> In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
How would you know? What governs quantum randomness?
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
To the best of our knowledge, but that's kind of the point of this work isn't it? Look at something blown up on a large enough scale and see if the results show that it's actually continuous or if there's evidence that (in this case) there's a "real" lattice QCD grid size affecting things.
Re: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a Star Trek Voyager episode where three humanoids on a planet survived a natural disaster that destroyed their planet by going into stasis and having their brains stimulated by a computer simulation for over 19 years. In that time, the adaptive computer responded to their worst fears by turning the "fun" model world full of clowns and dancers into a circus nightmare. The virtual characters created to enterta…
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Thaw
That's the one! Cheers.