Live data from Hacker News

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

simulation-argument.com

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#31
The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value.

It's worth taking into account that people tend to have two entirely separate ideas about the nature of any such simulation.

The first one is a Matrix-like universe: a world designed from the ground up to be an illusion specifically for us - a computer program so idiosyncratic as to be utterly implausible, which only cares about deceiving human minds into living in an artificial environment. This is the concept of a computer simulation always invoked by the popular media whenever this subject comes up.

The second one, which is what scientists usually mean, is an actual simulation that merely runs the basic processes of physics from which all the other things in the universe emerge - and these include accidentally, among other things and quite marginally, intelligent life forms such as humans. It's merely an uncaring physics simulation indistinguishable from a "natural" universe.

In the end both of these are scientifically barren concepts. The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications - holes which seem like they are in disagreement with daily observation and hence should lend themselves to falsification. The cold physics simulation on the other hand, while it doesn't share the intellectual weaknesses of the Matrix, gets us rapidly to a point where we might ask what difference it makes at all whether the fabric of reality is running on an artificial or "natural" substrate if there is no hope of ever finding out.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#32

I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in order to make 3d realistic. (2) We still haven't come up with an IA to chat with. (3) We still haven't figure out what's the smallest unit in the matter, if matter is a thing.

Ah, but how do you know you're not just used to a pale shadow of what REAL motion is outside of the simulation?

hits the bong again

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#33
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)

I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I don't believe in god" to "I believe there probably isn't a god". For example, infants have been raped in Africa due to the virgin cleansing myth, and every year thousands of people kill themselves due to unmanageable misery. Not to mention the way that so many people die of "natural" causes, e.g. drowning in their own phlegm only to be revived by hospital staff for another go-around.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#34

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof) I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I…

>It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering

Well .. is it though?

What if everything is so blissful and boring in the future that people intentionally torture themselves for decades at a time by experiencing "Earth-sim" so that they can build character / enjoy the utopia they've created? Or maybe this simulation is the rehabilitation track for criminals? There are a number of reasons to "suffer" and suffering shouldn't be cast out as unethical because we don't like it in the current context.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#35
post #31

The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into…

I don't remember who authored the following, but I thought it was amusing enough years ago to toss it into my interesting-quotes.txt:

I recall reading a science fiction story that involved the first human spaceship to reach the edge of the universe. When they tried to go through they bounced off, it was impenatrable.

Then we cut to 2 higher dimensional beings, and one says, "On that run it took life only 14.7 gigayears to reach the edge."

The other one says, "Great! Let's do another run. Sterilize the medium."

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#36

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof) I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I…

There's a Greg Egan novel where one character is invited to work to help build such a simulation. The character is shocked that the simulation creator was aware of the issue of suffering, and had plans to minimize suffering in the simulation. They found this more shocking then if the creator hadn't thought of the issue

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#37

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof) I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I…

By this same argument, wouldn't having children be unethical? (I believe it is by the way)

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#38
post #31

The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into…

>The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications

I agree the Matrix argument has significant plot holes, but given that there are an infinite set of conditions in which something analogous to The Matrix could exist that are probably outside the scope of current human understanding, it's not disprovable. (Although you can also say "God isn't disprovable".. but my point is you can't discredit Matrix arguments on implausibility grounds because we don't have the scope to make that judgement.)

>what difference it makes at all whether the fabric of reality is running on an artificial or "natural" substrate if there is no hope of ever finding out.

There is always hope of figuring it out given enough time. I see no reason to assume we couldn't "escape" the simulation and enter the next-level-up (which is probably also a simulation, but that's a discussion for a post-simulation-broken-hacker-news thread.)

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#39
post #35
post #31

The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into…

I don't remember who authored the following, but I thought it was amusing enough years ago to toss it into my interesting-quotes.txt: I recall reading a science fiction story that involved the first human spaceship to reach the edge of the universe. When they tried to go through they bounced off, it was impenatrable. Then we cut to 2 higher dimensional beings, and one says, "On that run it took life only 14.7 gigayea…

:D That's a very funny story!

When I imagine an intelligent life form simulating the universe, it might as well be a simple creature just pushing little stones from cell to cell across a coordinate system drawn into the sand of an impossibly huge plain, using a few very simple rules about where stones move on every single cell. And when the creature gets to the last stone in the grid, it starts the same thing again from the top.

This is also not my idea, I don't remember where I heard it first. But it's appealing for several reasons. It illustrates that no intelligence is necessary to run the universe. More fundamentally, however, it shows how a higher-dimensional being might very well have no real concept of what goes on in here. ;)

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#40
One of my favorite books, Idlewilde, is about a simulation that we created for just 9 people because the rest died of an incurable disease, and these 9 would need to repopulate the human race. A very good reason to have a simulation in my opinion. The book handles the wakeup in a pretty interesting way.

The best part is nested simulations -- if you're toying around with simulations like Oculus Rift and then you wake up from Earth-sim, it starts to become a game of "where the actual f_k am I really?"

Post reply on HN