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

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

#281

Post by mannykannot » Fri, Mar 24, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #274

simonh wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious believers believe certain things about god and the human-divine relationship. Anything that isn't consistent with those beliefs simply isn't god, from their perspective.

I think you are painting with too broad a brush. But even within that framework, there is room to have things that one 'imagines' about God, that one doesn't necessarily 'believe' as a part of ones core beliefs about God. Certainly various religious sects have core beliefs about the human-divine relationship- however, within most belief systems, there remains a great deal of speculation and room for 'imagination'. Fo…

But in what way would it be like the sort of simulation being discussed here?

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

#282

Post by ensignavenger » Fri, Mar 24, 2017, 8:42 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #281

ensignavenger wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are painting with too broad a brush. But even within that framework, there is room to have things that one 'imagines' about God, that one doesn't necessarily 'believe' as a part of ones core beliefs about God. Certainly various religious sects have core beliefs about the human-divine relationship- however, within most belief systems, there remains a great deal of speculation and room for 'imagination'. Fo…

But in what way would it be like the sort of simulation being discussed here?

Well, after starting at the posted article and going back several layers, it isn't really clear to me what sort of simulation is being discussed... only a "computer" simulation. But what sort of computer? Plenty of room to speculate.

There was another aspect- the argument that we are in a simulation created by descendants of humanity to study their past- a purpose that would be hard to reconcile with most religious beliefs about the purpose of life.

I was primarily replying to the idea of this life being a simulation, not so much the purpose of that simulation, though.

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

#283

Post by mannykannot » Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 12:32 AM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #282

mannykannot wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in what way would it be like the sort of simulation being discussed here?

Well, after starting at the posted article and going back several layers, it isn't really clear to me what sort of simulation is being discussed... only a "computer" simulation. But what sort of computer? Plenty of room to speculate. There was another aspect- the argument that we are in a simulation created by descendants of humanity to study their past- a purpose that would be hard to reconcile with most religious b…

I am referring to 'simulation' as used in the posted article. As for types of computer, there is fundamentally only one - Turing-equivalent machines (there is some speculation that quantum computing might have additional capabilities, but that is highly speculative, in a 'the mind is mysterious, quantum mechanics is weird, so the mind must be using as-yet unelucidated quantum phenomena' sort of way.) All this and more is discussed in this blog [1].

The word 'simulation' may have several meanings. We should beware of tacitly assuming that a metaphorical or analogical use establishes an actual correspondence.

[1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3208

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

#284

Post by Myrmornis » Sun, Mar 26, 2017, 6:08 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #228

Myrmornis wrote: post #66

Can someone explain the first bit of the last sentence? > if our world is a simulation, then whoever is simulating it seems to have a clear preference for the 2-norm over the 1-norm Is it basically saying that space looks Euclidean at a range of scales and Pythagoras crops up everywhere or is it saying something else / more sophisticated? What would the Universe look like if its creator favored a 1-norm?

I think he's referring less to the geometry of space(-time) and more to the structure of quantum mechanics. Classical probabilities are positive real numbers that add up to 1. (The 1-norm of the vector of probabilities is 1.) Quantum ampltiudes are complex numbers whose squared absolute values add up to 1. (The 2-norm of the vector of amplitudes is 1.) A universe made by someone who preferred 1-norms would more likel…

Thanks! That was a really helpful reply. Started reading the Aaronson intro to QM you linked and it does seem like a very direct and understandable approach to the subject.

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

#285

Post by besselheim » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #235

besselheim wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do you consider the brain (and presumably no more or no less than the brain) to be the vessel for your self, rather than other boundaries of embodiment?

You can choose an arbitrarily large vessel (e.g. you can argue that you are your body + your immediate surroundings). But the brain seems to be the smallest such vessel which still leads to an indistinguishable result.

We know from neurosurgery that some fairly large parts of the brain can be removed without apparently adversely affecting the subject's sense of self, so it seems it must be more complex than drawing a boundary around the gross anatomy of the brain.