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

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

#241

Post by carry_bit » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:07 PM UTC

pka wrote: post #214

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 co…

> 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?

Calculating it just provides a window into the simulation; it still exists (in an abstract mathematical sense) even if you're not looking.

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

#242

Post by xinyhn » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

pka wrote: post #214

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 co…

relevant https://xkcd.com/505/

I know it has been mentioned in this topic several times but again, anyone with an interest should definitely check out Permutation City. All of these concepts are explored in very entertaining ways.

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

#243

Post by aswanson » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

Gormisdomai wrote: post #231

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…

Kant student here. Find below some relevant Kant for the unitiatied. Note that Kant interpretations are everywhere and that no two scholars are alike, but I've tried to list the less controversial stuff. Look at a thing on your desk. You are having a sensation of light and colour. Kant calls this raw pixel level sense data "sensibility". Now as well as just seeing pixels you can distinguish the thing you are looking…

Thank you. I think I lean towards Transcendental Idealism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12709430

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

#244

Post by sullyj3 » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #191

sullyj3 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, the upper bound for the amount you'd have to simulate would be smaller than the universe, you'd only need to simulate a volume containing all particles that could causally affect you within the duration of the simulation, which would be limited by lightspeed. But I think, even then, you could simulate distant stuff at far lower resolution than near stuff, in a way that dropped off in expense very very quickly.…

You can go further than that. Depending on your goal, you only need to simulate enough that subject being simulated can not notice the difference. Everything else can be generated on demand. E.g. consider the game Elite. It creates an - admittedly very simple - illusion of a persistent universe by using pseudo-random numbers to generate star systems. It then populates those systems with ships whenever you visit one.…

I was kind of vaguely gesturing towards that idea, but you crystallized and articulated it much better than I could :)

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

#245

Post by kirykl » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:30 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…

Does a mind generated by finite computation violate Godel's incompleteness ?

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

#246

Post by akssri » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

I'm a string in X^*, and the universe is a real number.

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

#247

Post by Retric » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #216

Retric wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Many, non western philosophies are are not necessarily religious and do hold that A and not A can both be true. Many non religious western philosophers hold similar beliefs as do most religious western philosophers.

Now you could argue that a majority of non religious western philosophers agree with the excluded middle, but that's a fairly weak argument.

PS: Read some of the crap that showed up from poor understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

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

#248

Post by throwaway123990 » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

planetjones wrote: post #24

But couldn't our universe be being simulated by a species far more advanced and discrete to anything the human race has ever encountered? How do we know that another form of life doesn't find everything that we find super complex extremely trivial ?

"Gee doc, it's simulations all the way down!"

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

#249

Post by CuriouslyC » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

Aqueous wrote: post #210

CuriouslyC wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Kant's view of an objective outside world is that it is to some degree demonstrably false. Quantum physics shows us that the observed and the observer constitute a system, and the nature of the observer influences the properties of that system as a whole. That influence might be small enough on very large scales to call the observed to some degree "objective" but we don't know that for sure.

If by objective you mean it is an object that exists independently of our perception of it, quantum mechanics, like Kant, also assumes that a reality independent of our perception exists. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific theory at all, because what would it be about? The idea of superposition prior to measurement is different than an objective reality not existing at all. In quantum mechanics prior to measuremen…

If you come at it in terms of distributions and information, some information (the observed) has a distribution over possible states, and some other information (the observer) has a distribution over possible states. When you transition from two systems to one system by interaction, these distributions are no longer independent. As a result, if your definition of objective is that something has a definite state independent of the context, that is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure this holds regardless of which interpretation of QM you adhere to, even "deterministic" ones like Bohmian Mechanics, as in that case the observer influences the wave function, which in turn influences the forces acting on particles, producing a modified system.

I'm not arguing that information doesn't exist, that would be silly. My point is that perception (which requires interaction) is impossible without becoming part of the system you are perceiving. Different observers will produce different combined systems, and thus the thing being observed is to some degree inherently subjective. Like I said, the magnitude of this effect is debatable, but that it exists is unquestionable.

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

#250

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Mar 22, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #14

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…

> But it is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system--that's basic thermodynamics I haven't heard quite that argument before. Couldn't it just be simulated slower than real-time? Or is memory the issue?

In order to simulate anything you have to expend energy and create entropy to power the simulation.

But to be completely accurate, a simulation must include all the energy expenditures and entropy of the system being simulated. So the math can never add up.