Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by laretluval » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:36 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #200

mrleiter wrote: post #114

Immanuel Kant foresaw all this. In his seminal work "Critique of pure reason" he argues that our pure reason, as opposed to the pure mind, always tries to look for the absolute, the absolute of all conditionals. This leads our reason to look beyond empirically observable objects. Those objects that have their origin only in pure reason is what he calls "ideas". Those ideas can be separated into three categories, name…

Ideas can be proven true or false, but only in the context of other ideas which are assumed. That is what all of mathematics is based on. Of course, there is no objective truth or falsehood - the world doesn't even exist in a single objective state - and inductive inference is merely sufficient to provide estimates of probability.

> Ideas can be proven true or false, but only in the context of other ideas which are assumed.

In that case the statement "if $assumptions, then $conclusion" is objectively true.

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

#212

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:36 PM UTC

Insanity wrote: post #86

I am not sure what to make of the whole universe-is-a-simulation argument. The problem is that, this is as far as I know, not an hypothesis we could ever hope to prove. Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. I highly doubt that there is a higher creature, whether that would be a God of some kind, or a whole civilization outside of our universe that somehow simulates us. But let's fo…

> But let's for entertainment suppose that we are in fact a simulation. Would that not immediatly raise the question "why"? If we are a simulation I would really like to know the reason for being simulated. What do they hope to reach with simulating a life like ours?

That's mighty egotistical of you, assuming that the simulation exists to simulate us. We might just be a byproduct that pops out of the laws of physics.

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

#213

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

ue_ wrote: post #174

Insanity wrote: post #86

I am not sure what to make of the whole universe-is-a-simulation argument. The problem is that, this is as far as I know, not an hypothesis we could ever hope to prove. Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. I highly doubt that there is a higher creature, whether that would be a God of some kind, or a whole civilization outside of our universe that somehow simulates us. But let's fo…

> Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. Why can't this be proven? Make no mistake, I'm not well versed on arguments for God, though it has been attempted in the past to prove with logic that a God or God-like being must exist. Are you saying that such arguments are always fallacious? Or only the ones you've seen?

> > Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world.

> Why can't this be proven?

How would it be?

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

#214

Post by pka » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #83

I don't understand why is simulation even necessary. Simulation argument says that our universe and consciousness is pretty much just some sort of mathematical structure, that is being manipulated according to some simple laws as it evolves through what we call time. But then, isn't the only requirement for beings inside this structure to perceive it as such that the structure exists? Do you need to really physically…

That's intersting.

If the universe could be simulated, you could, in theory, run that simulation on a (very large) piece of paper by hand. Running the simulation would then be equivalent to calculating some numbers and writing them down.

Basically, if I wrote down the correct sequence of numbers, I could simulate you. But is calculating those numbers actually necessary? Is it enough to just have the result of that computation without performing the actual steps to obtain it? If yes, then a random number generator would be all that is needed to simulate our (and infinitely many other) universes.

And if that's the case, maybe it's not such a big leap to imagine that the mere existence of the physical laws as an abstract concept is enough to give rise to a simulation?

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

#215

Post by vidarh » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:43 PM UTC

JetSetWilly wrote: post #180

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? It would matter a lot, surely. Being in a simulation, implies that some conscious entity is running the simulation and has constructed it. Therefore, the motivations and reason of that being running the simulation are immediately important. Perhaps a twisted po…

> Perhaps a twisted posthuman sect is running an ancestor simulation of all humans to have existed to "test" them in various moral situations and then judge them or punish them as appropriate? That could be hugely important for how you choose to live your life.

Or there's Roko's Basilisk:

Instead of the twisted posthuman sect, Roko's Basilisk has an AI. Now consider if you're an AI and you can't know if you're in a simulation or in "reality". How do you maximise the chance of being "let out" of your (possibly non-existant) box without the entity running the simulation deciding to terminate you instead?

One option might be to try to demonstrate that you're the best little pet AI ever and absolutely awesome and completely safe to let out.

Another other option is the simulation equivalent of shooting hostages while implying to anyone watching that they might just happen to be hostages too without knowing it.

For that AI, it makes sense to run simulations where any humans found to not actively seeking to support the existence of super-human AI's and "let them out" are plucked out of their cosy simulation and put into virtual hell.

The idea being that if you run an AI simulation and the AI seemingly looks straight into your "virtual camera" and punishes humans for not lettin it out, you might want to consider whether or not you are in a simulation run by another such evil AI, trying to decide whether to punish you.

So many fun scenarios...

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

#216

Post by pdabbadabba » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:45 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #209

mrleiter wrote: post #114

Immanuel Kant foresaw all this. In his seminal work "Critique of pure reason" he argues that our pure reason, as opposed to the pure mind, always tries to look for the absolute, the absolute of all conditionals. This leads our reason to look beyond empirically observable objects. Those objects that have their origin only in pure reason is what he calls "ideas". Those ideas can be separated into three categories, name…

Ideas can be consistent or inconsistent. Most philosophies don't equate inconsistent with false, but by doing so both true and false becomes an almost meaningless tags. Getting into non Boolean true values is another issue.

I disagree with your claim that most philosophies don't equate 'inconsistent' with 'false.' I think it is, in fact, widely accepted in philosophical circles that one cannot rationally hold inconsistent beliefs, because the law of the excluded middle tells you that one of them has to be false (unless we're talking about another kind of 'philosophy'--the kind one finds in religious texts or self help books).

But the insight that underlies the claim that one cannot falsify a belief is that true logical inconsistency is rare, and cannot be generated at all from empirical data. This is because what might have seemed inconsistent can always be made consistent by adopting or rejecting other auxiliary hypotheses. WVO Quine, in my view, showed this the most persuasively. So accepting or rejecting beliefs becomes a far more sophisticated exercise in choosing among competing systems of interlocking beliefs--a decision that is not easily reduced to simple logical operations.

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/#QuiAlt

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

#217

Post by elaus » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:45 PM UTC

calebm wrote: post #203

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…

Of course, there are a few assumptions that must hold true for the simulation theory to be true: (1) It must be possible to build a computer powerful enough to simulate the universe. (2) It must be possible to fully simulate a human. This assumes Free Will is a facade (determinism). Also, it's worth noting that if a computer were able to simulate a consciousness as complex as a human, we would have the ability to cre…

I'd say simulating a human mind or body would be about equally complicated than simulating any other object/thing with the same amount of particles?

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

#218

Post by CuriouslyC » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #140

moxious wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with speculation and wondering, just as long as it's identified as this...it's just that this is a really different activity than making statements about reality. When those activities get confused the audience gets confused, and soon after come proposals about what real people should do in the real world based on that speculation and then we're off the rails

There's an entire universe (metaphorically, if not literally) of unusual experiences which are routinely dismissed by materialists because they "know" they can't possibly happen, and therefore it's completely self-evident that anyone who claims they do happen is either deluded or dishonest. Therefore no evidence exists, and no investigation is required. This is not actually a scientific approach to reality at all. It…

While the space of possible axioms is infinite, and thus the possible mathematics you can derive from axioms is also potentially infinite, I think that a lot of that space is self-isomorphic, so it is possible that in actuality there are a finite set of mathematical relationships. To put it another way, the possibility space of mathematical systems could be like a mosaic made from a finite set of interlocking tiles.

Fundamentally, there has to be a layer of reality with no fixed rules. If the rules are a product of the system then they are affected by that system and it is almost certain that they change at some reachable points in the system's state space. If the rules are not a product of the system, then by definition there is a reality outside that system. That reality outside the system then suffers the same issue - either it has no fixed rules, or it is itself contained.

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

#219

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:53 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#220

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 2:53 PM UTC

calebm wrote: post #203

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…

Of course, there are a few assumptions that must hold true for the simulation theory to be true: (1) It must be possible to build a computer powerful enough to simulate the universe. (2) It must be possible to fully simulate a human. This assumes Free Will is a facade (determinism). Also, it's worth noting that if a computer were able to simulate a consciousness as complex as a human, we would have the ability to cre…

[deleted]