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

I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

qntm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#41

Post by bspammer »

socialist_coder wrote: post #4

Good story and I absolutely believe this to be true. It just seems like the most logical thing. I mean, as soon as any civilization ever can simulate a universe, or even a galaxy, they would. And they would do it infinite times. So the chances that we're the original are infinite to 1. Doesn't mean our lives aren't real though and we should change our behavior. We still experience joy. So experience as much joy as yo…

You have to make the pretty big assumption that it’s even possible to simulate a universe within the universe. Such an assumption is basically like assuming we could move faster than light, or reverse entropy. It seems unlikely to me.

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#42

Post by gibybo »

pulkitsh1234 wrote: post #15

Nice story, each paragraph is pretty densely packed with layers of meaning and wisdom about our own existence and nature of reality. Although this is pure fiction and speculation, thought experiments like these (existence of free will, laplace's demon), rely on determinism. Even if we assume the universe to be completely deterministic, we need to "know" the initial seed state (usually called big bang). That initial s…

>We can think about "what" the initial state is ? Is that initial state self contained ? or was it under effect of something else ? Will the computer "generate" the initial state, or the programmer (aka god) has to explicitly hard code it carefully to create an apparent stable universe ?

They have infinite computing power, just simulate all possible initial states?

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#43

Post by julianpye »

Lovely story. I once wrote a small medium piece on how it would be great if coders of simulations incorporate spirituality/religion that would be fair to the objects in the simulation. It included Java code - because as buggy as the Universe is, it surely is written in Java. https://medium.com/@photodiary/implementing-religion-in-ai-l...

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#44

Post by rkachowski »

kian wrote: post #35

He's one of the best modern sci-fi writers. The whole collection of short stories here is fantastic, as is the "Anti-mimetics division" series he wrote over on SCP wiki.

i had no idea that was the same author, both the linked story and the anti memetics sequence have taken root in my mind for a long time.

Before reading the antiemetics series I had always considered SCP to be an awkward xfiles style fan fiction collection, I'm still looking for more to scratch that itch.

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#45

Post by boomboomsubban »

ur-whale wrote: post #27

What if the double-slit experiment is nothing but a bug in the simulator's code ? If so: either we found an exploit or we're building an entire complex theory (QM) to explain a mistake ...

>If so: either we found an exploit or we're building an entire complex theory (QM) to explain a mistake

The complex theory correctly predicts real world behavior, nothing changes from our perspective if it's some kind of bug.

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#46

Post by solstice »

IngoBlechschmid wrote: post #38

A further short story by the same author, very short and very suspenseful, about a powerful AI facing an existential task: https://qntm.org/transit If you like longer stories, then https://qntm.org/ra . "Magic is real. Discovered in the 1970s, magic is now a bona fide field of engineering. There's magic in heavy industry and magic in your home. It's what's next after electricity." Magic as an abstraction layer.

Ra and Fine Structure are both incredibly engrossing and absolutely mind-bending

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#47

Post by Zanni »

kian wrote: post #35

He's one of the best modern sci-fi writers. The whole collection of short stories here is fantastic, as is the "Anti-mimetics division" series he wrote over on SCP wiki.

I just read "There Is No Antimemetics Division," and I was blown away. Really exhilarating science fiction that feels at once hyper-modern and yet retro in that it's more about ideas than characters. Very reminiscent of Ted Chiang. (I was also pretty delightfully confused by the timeline because I read it as a novel when it's actually a collection of short stories.)

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#48

Post by lifeisstillgood »

I really badly need tl;dr -

How can each simulated universe be the same as the one above an below? Why can't they diverge? If they turn off their universe (killing all those below) why would that turn off the one above?

Or is it just hope that if you don't the one above won't ? Because while all decisions are possible we make thrones in our self interest because we hope everyone else is playing the same game.

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#49

Post by drdeca »

choeger wrote: post #7
socialist_coder wrote: post #4

Good story and I absolutely believe this to be true. It just seems like the most logical thing. I mean, as soon as any civilization ever can simulate a universe, or even a galaxy, they would. And they would do it infinite times. So the chances that we're the original are infinite to 1. Doesn't mean our lives aren't real though and we should change our behavior. We still experience joy. So experience as much joy as yo…

First of all, the chance that you are a simulation does not depend on the number of simulations in existence. In fact, there is no such chance, as there is no random distribution process you are observing, except you claim that every observer has one of finitely many souls somehow assigned to them. Such things belong into the realm of religion. But even then, either you are real or not. If you are not, there is no re…

A physically random process isn’t needed for probabilities to make sense.

Further, suppose a computer agent knew that it would soon have 6 copies of itself (including current state) would be spun up, each in a different vm, and for each vm, a different simulated environment, but that the current copy of itself would also continue running. While each of the simulated environments differ from each-other and the true/outer environment, they don’t differ in a way that can quickly be detected. Different actions in the simulated environments and the “real”/original environment, would have different effects in the original environment, effects which the agent cares about.

In order to best produce outcomes in accordance with what the agent cares about, how should the agent act? I think it makes sense for the agent to act as if there is a 1/7 chance that it is in the original environment, and a 6/7 chance it is in one of the 6 simulated environments. How could it be otherwise? Suppose the original, and each of the vm copies, is given a choice between two options, X or Y, where if it chooses X, then if it is the original, then it gets +m utility of benefit in the original environment , but if it is one of the copies in a vm, instead it gets -n utility of benefit in it cares about in the original environment. If it chooses Y, then there is no change in the reward.

The combination of values of m and n which combine to result in it making sense for to choose X, are exactly those such that would make it make sense assuming it has a 1/7 chance of being the original and 6/7 chance of being in a vm.

That being said, I don’t think we are in a simulation. I just don’t think that the concept of “assigning a probability other than 0,1 or 1/2 to being in a simulation” is always unreasonable in all conceivable circumstances. I just happen to think that it is highly unlikely for us.

Re: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility (2007)

#50

Post by Zanni »

Okay, this is wonderful, but there's an obvious, nagging question that hasn't been addressed--what happens if they run the simulation ahead of present time? We know they have fine-grain control over the speed of the simulation. There's no actual obstacle to running it forward ... except the feedback loop gets very weird. I want to read that story.
Post reply on HN