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

How to hack the simulation?

researchgate.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#41

Post by bnegreve »

p-e-w wrote: post #30

> [...] in addition to several respected thinkers who have explicitly shared their probability of believe with regards to living in a simulation (ex. Elon Musk >99.9999999%, Nick Bostrom 20-50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson 50%, Hans Moravec “almost certainly”, David Kipping These "respected thinkers" would do well to go back to the roots of philosophy, which is wonder and uncertainty. The sheer amount of arrogance necessary…

> You don't know, at all. Why is it so difficult to just admit that to yourselves and others?

When he says 50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson is quite literally saying "I don't know".

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#42

Post by kelnos »

jjallen wrote: post #29
kelnos wrote: post #23

If we are simulated, then it (obviously) proves that such simulation is possible, which suggests that the world that is simulating ours is likely also a simulation -- as is probably the case for most other worlds we might encounter. It might take an unimaginable amount of time to break out of each successive simulation to find a top-level world that is "real". There's also the question of what a "simulation" is, even…

Are you saying "which suggests that the world that is simulating ours is likely also a simulation" because if there is another one than it is _possible_ we are therefore somewhat likely? If so, I tend to agree. As beings, we generate many many billions of simulations every day. And because _we_ create so many, I think it is likely that other beings also create many.

The idea is that if any particular society in a "real" universe is interested in simulating other realities, and if it turns out that it actually is possible to simulate other realities, then we should expect that there'd be a near-infinite number of simulations. Because the society in the "real" universe would likely create many such simulations, and many of those simulated societies would figure out how to create their own simulations, and many of those simulated societies would do the same, so on and so forth. So you'd have "simulations all the way down", so to speak.

Even if there are many "real" universes, you'd still expect each "real" universe to spawn some huge number of simulated universes. Without evidence to the contrary, any individual universe -- including our own -- should not assume it's one of the relatively rare "real" universes. And there'd be no reason to assume we are in one of the "first level" simulations that the "real" universes have created, either.

And even if there are infinite "real" universes, you would still end up with a much larger infinity of simulated universes.

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#43

Post by jjallen »

consumer451 wrote: post #39

I may be repeating myself here, but I stopped indulging in simulation theory once I realized one simple concept: Simulation theory is deism for techies. Thousands of years ago the Greeks looked to the sky and used their modern tech to explain the mechanics of the heavens. Clearly it was Helios, who drove the chariot of the Sun across the sky each day. Simulation theory is meerly us techies applying our latest technol…

Strongly disagree.

As humanity progresses our tech gets more and more advanced. At some point, our "latest technological concepts" will reach peak/extreme levels. Clearly our tech is more advanced than it was 2000 years ago. We now have the ability to create simulations are ourselves and we do in droves: many trillions of simulations per day we create.

I think it is only natural to wonder about the next level up. For the ancient Greeks it was yes, the stars--the heavens. We can now see the stars clearly. So now we're wondering about the next level, if any. And I think neither of us can say definitively yes or no as to whether or not there is another level.

Besides wondering if there is a current level there is another unanswered question that seems to be the most important ones, at least to those of us that still think about these things: what was there before our universe. What happened before the big bang?

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#44

Post by jjallen »

xyzelement wrote: post #14
gsatic wrote: post #12

> The easiest path to escape would be getting help from someone on the outside ideally from one or more of the simulators Well let me tell you chimps something - I am in fact on the outside. And some of you have indeed made contact. But since most of you are primarily obsessed with eating, fucking, accumulating bananas and fighting over bananas we have not received a single request for escape. Do any of you want to e…

The reason we would escape is that we believe the higher worlds are deeper spiritually than ours, and we wish to elevate our spiritually. But we do not seek to escape because our real work is to elevate the spiritual level of the world we are in.

Or we would escape simply out of curiosity and the desire to explore. These are clearly innate within many of us and some of us were rewarded in the past for exploring.

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#45

Post by nprateem »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #24

The problem with finding and abusing exploits is that it leads to them getting patched and the timeline reverts. Every time a game-breaking bug is exploited it gets patched and the simulation restarts. Even if you figure out a couple of juicy exploits and you manage to retain your memories across instances, congratulations you are still stuck in Samsara. My hypothesis is that the ability to remember across lifetimes…

> getting patched

That assumes that finding a way out isn't the point of the simulation.

I've always thought enlightenment or hallucinogens were the gateway.

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#46

Post by jl6 »

consumer451 wrote: post #39

I may be repeating myself here, but I stopped indulging in simulation theory once I realized one simple concept: Simulation theory is deism for techies. Thousands of years ago the Greeks looked to the sky and used their modern tech to explain the mechanics of the heavens. Clearly it was Helios, who drove the chariot of the Sun across the sky each day. Simulation theory is meerly us techies applying our latest technol…

100%.

It is unevidenced and unfalsifiable. It is fun to think about, but so is a lot of science fiction.

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#47

Post by throwaway3286 »

p-e-w wrote: post #18
brainfish wrote: post #3

Supposing that we can, this seems like a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox.

Here's a far more plausible one: Large-scale space exploration and space engineering are ultimately not worth it, and any sufficiently advanced civilization eventually realizes this. The meme that "civilizations need ever more resources" is a reflection of humanity's past two centuries, not some universal truth.

Maybe they eventually figured out of how to hack the simulation, and have every resource they could possiblity want?

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#48

Post by kelnos »

consumer451 wrote: post #39

I may be repeating myself here, but I stopped indulging in simulation theory once I realized one simple concept: Simulation theory is deism for techies. Thousands of years ago the Greeks looked to the sky and used their modern tech to explain the mechanics of the heavens. Clearly it was Helios, who drove the chariot of the Sun across the sky each day. Simulation theory is meerly us techies applying our latest technol…

Hard disagree.

Science is about making hypotheses and testing them. It's fine to come up with a hypothesis that is untestable, especially if it's reasonable to assume that we may one day be able to test it. It's fine to even consider the probability that your hypothesis is true, absent the ability to test it, given whatever priors we have.

Sure, believing that we are in a simulation without evidence would be some form of religion. But merely acknowledging that it's possible that we're in a simulation... well, that's just basic science.

It sounds like you are doing something anti-scientific yourself: rejecting the possibility without evidence. This is one of the things that bothers me about hard-line atheists: just because gods are not falsifiable, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. I personally don't think they exist, but I accept that it's possible I'm wrong. Asserting that atheism is absolutely true and correct is no less a "religion" than theism is.

Consider this: if it is possible for our society, someday, to simulate a universe with the fidelity that we ourselves observe in our universe, then it is not only possible, but incredibly likely, that we, ourselves, are living in simulation. We can come to this conclusion using logic and reason. No belief or religion is necessary.

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#49

Post by throwaway3286 »

giantg2 wrote: post #8

I wonder if the people who are reincarnated (if true) would know...

The scariest scifi story I read was about a person who was forced to live as every person who ever existed to become enlightened. So they would experience every bad or good thing that had happened and would happen.

It gives a new meaning to "treat others as you would like others to treat you"

Btw, if we are in a simulation and the admin is reading this, I would like to make some changes to my life ;-)

Re: How to hack the simulation?

#50

Post by jl6 »

kelnos wrote: post #38
p-e-w wrote: post #30

> [...] in addition to several respected thinkers who have explicitly shared their probability of believe with regards to living in a simulation (ex. Elon Musk >99.9999999%, Nick Bostrom 20-50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson 50%, Hans Moravec “almost certainly”, David Kipping These "respected thinkers" would do well to go back to the roots of philosophy, which is wonder and uncertainty. The sheer amount of arrogance necessary…

I'd suggest reading up on this a bit more before passing judgment. Certainly some of these people are full of hot air, but it is actually reasonable to put ballpark numbers on the probability. There's currently one big unknown around this: is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? If the answer is yes, then the probability that our reality is simulated does actu…

> There's currently one big unknown around this: is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves?

It’s a whopper of an unknown, on the same scale as “is there a God?”. Might as well go full theist if you want to entertain this possibility.

Post reply on HN