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

Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 285 posts

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#161

Post by moron4hire »

alvarosevilla95 wrote: post #158
moron4hire wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."

I disagree. "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model." means we learned somthing we previously didn't, and we have to update our model. On the other hand, what if acceleration caused by gravity suddenly became 5 m/s^2? this wouldn't be new information, but a fact that directly contradicts previous knowledge.

"Observation contradicting previous knowledge" is literally the point of experimentation. If gravity were to do such a thing, either A) it was indistinguishable from random chance and we incorporate a concept of uncertainty into our understanding of gravity (which has actually happened), or B) it'd be reproducible and we'd... update our understanding of gravity (which has also actually happened). In neither case do we receive information we can use to determine "meddling".

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#162

Post by wallace_f »

moron4hire wrote: post #153
cousin_it wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meaningful version of the question "am I in a simulation?" is "how likely am I to observe meddling from simulation masters, as opposed to observing business as usual according to the laws of physics?" The only reasonable answer seems to be "very unlikely, because I haven't observed such meddling before". That reasoning depends only on induction, so it works regardless of how many copies of me exist. (BTW, I'm pre…

There is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."

and any a priori meddling would be indistinguishable from 'the Standard Model, i.e. that's just how physics works'

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#163

Post by contravariant »

tbabb wrote: post #43
leni536 wrote: post #26

The statement "we live in a simulation" is not falsifiable. For me this question is simply not interesting.

I think the fact that it is not falsifiable means that we should not believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting.

Just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean you shouldn't ever believe it. It merely means you have to decide whether to believe it, it's negation, or neither, based on no evidence.

Keep in mind that most of mathematics isn't falsifiable either. Although I suppose it actually might be, unless it is consistent.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#164

Post by amelius »

My personal favorite (untested) theory is that the universe does not exist at all in reality, but only in an abstract way through a rewrite system that combines "nothingness with nothingness" ad infinitum [1, 2]

[1] http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6544

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XdhzCORbo

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#165

Post by cronjobber »

snowwrestler wrote: post #6

Here's what I wrote in a comment here last year about the Bostrom simulation argument specifically: The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws. 1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistic…

Bostrom himself isn't committed to simulation. His actual argument is that either we're almost certainly living in a simulation or the stated assumptions are wrong.

Moreover, there's a difference between "the universe is a simulation" in the sense used in the article and "my conscious experiences are a simulation." The latter is unconstrained by "number of qubits in the universe." The apparent complexity of this universe you think you're inhabiting isn't real, and neither is Scott Aaronson.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#166

Post by nxtrafalgar »

Swizec wrote: post #81
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many questions in life that are interesting to consider, independent of whether they're falsifiable. It tends to get boring to consider only questions that can be experimentally proven, though different people have different interests. Questions about society and human nature are worth considering, for example, but it's difficult to do controlled experiments. There's some truth to "watch out for wishful thi…

The part where "is this a simulation" becomes an uninteresting question is when you ask "Does it matter?". Would answering the question of whether we're in a simulation have any impact on your behavior, thoughts, and actions? Probably not. So what does it matter? My high school physics teacher once said that, if we ever find something that is outside the universe, then we will obviously be smart enough to call that t…

Would answering the question of whether we're in a simulation have any impact on your behavior, thoughts, and actions? Probably not. So what does it matter?

If we could prove (or even make a strong, but unverifiable argument) for or against the claim that we live in a simulation, then that would have a real-world effect.

A concrete example: if we knew we lived in a simulation, and therefore knew that the simulation of an entire universe were possible, we'd probably expend resources on research and engineering efforts to create such a simulation.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#167

Post by Filligree »

wallace_f wrote: post #162
moron4hire wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."

and any a priori meddling would be indistinguishable from ' the Standard Model, i.e. that's just how physics works '

Flaming letters in the sky stating "This is a simulation"?

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#168

Post by Filligree »

nxtrafalgar wrote: post #166
Swizec wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part where "is this a simulation" becomes an uninteresting question is when you ask "Does it matter?". Would answering the question of whether we're in a simulation have any impact on your behavior, thoughts, and actions? Probably not. So what does it matter? My high school physics teacher once said that, if we ever find something that is outside the universe, then we will obviously be smart enough to call that t…

Would answering the question of whether we're in a simulation have any impact on your behavior, thoughts, and actions? Probably not. So what does it matter? If we could prove (or even make a strong, but unverifiable argument) for or against the claim that we live in a simulation, then that would have a real-world effect. A concrete example: if we knew we lived in a simulation, and therefore knew that the simulation o…

> A concrete example: if we knew we lived in a simulation, and therefore knew that the simulation of an entire universe were possible, we'd probably expend resources on research and engineering efforts to create such a simulation.

It is pretty unlikely that an equal simulation would be possible, and we already know it's possible to create smaller ones; particle-physics simulations are common, though still incomplete.

In general, there's no requirement that the 'metaverse' follow the same laws of physics as this one.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#169

Post by cousin_it »

moron4hire wrote: post #153
cousin_it wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meaningful version of the question "am I in a simulation?" is "how likely am I to observe meddling from simulation masters, as opposed to observing business as usual according to the laws of physics?" The only reasonable answer seems to be "very unlikely, because I haven't observed such meddling before". That reasoning depends only on induction, so it works regardless of how many copies of me exist. (BTW, I'm pre…

There is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."

That doesn't seem right. If tomorrow the mass of your ashtray started fluctuating in Morse code, spelling out "hello from the simulation master" and replying to your questions intelligently, your first instinct wouldn't be to update the standard model.

Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation

#170

Post by jrs235 »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #89

Something that most people never consider in these discussions: If you accept the hypothesis that mind is generated by a computation, and that this computation is finite, then the same computation that produces "you" can be performed in different places and at different times. The same computation can be performed inside a simulation, inside a simulation inside a simulation and so on. Whatever environment around you…

>The same computation can be performed inside a simulation, inside a simulation inside a simulation and so on.

So indeed, it could be turtles all the way down!

Post reply on HN