This is similar to asking how real the character in a book is when no one is reading or remembering it.
Existing in an un-simulated reality
41–50 of 94 posts
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe so, yes. I think it's somewhat likely that mathematically minded people would come up with that idea independently -- it's essentially Platonism taken to its logical conclusion. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...
Yep, had the same thoughts a few years ago too. Basically if you accept mathematical realism as an axiom, pretty often you get to this idea
Had this thought in the bath ~25 years ago. Not an idea you can actually do anything with, though, other than go 'huh, interesting' and add more hot water.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#43This is similar to David Lewis's modal realism, which says that every possible world is real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism
There isn't really much of a connection between this and Bostrom's simulation argument. The simulation argument is about calculating the probability that we live in a simulated universe based on certain assumptions about human behavior and technological development. Bostrom's argument doesn't make any metaphysical claims other than assuming that consciousness is substrate independent.
I don't buy into metaphysical theories that claim to deduce the existence of worlds outside our own based on armchair reasoning. We know that the physical universe exists and we can explain everything that we experience in terms of quantum field theory and general relativity. Any theory that wants to challenge this view of the world needs to modify those existing theories, or design an experiment that shows why they aren't adequate to explain reality.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#44This argument seems to mix up "existence" and "construction". The number states do not magically appear in the physical universe merely by thinking up the construction. The numbers could be configured as (temporary) patterns in physical objects, such as brains, books, or in ink molecules on paper. But the states are not physical objects themselves. Also, if our universe happens to be universal, in the sense that it e…
In response to your second point, at a high level I believe the calculation device would exist inside _one_ universe but calculate another one... the idea that you could calculate your own universe and use that to predict future events does seem covered in paradoxes. For one, the universe you're predicting would (recursively) have to include the computer you're using to predict it. ... but that's different to what I'…
> The calculation device would exist inside one universe but calculate another one...
Hmm... calculation device? I thought the premise here is that actually doing the calculation is not necessary - a tenet you invoke in order to say say elsewhere [1] that the computational complexity does not matter, as the notionally simulated universe exists anyway.
But if that were so, would it not do away with the distinction between simulating and simulated universes, creating the situation where every possible universe exists in every extant universe?
That's a lot of universes.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#45This is similar to David Lewis's modal realism, which says that every possible world is real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism There isn't really much of a connection between this and Bostrom's simulation argument. The simulation argument is about calculating the probability that we live in a simulated universe based on certain assumptions about human behavior and technological development. Bostrom's argum…
> we can explain everything that we experience in terms of quantum field theory and general relativity
Everything we experience, except experience itself. Conscious/qualia/whatever is still… well, none but God knows what it is, and I have no evidence for the existence of any god let alone that one.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#46Basically it's a question of whether math exists. If it exists then the states of the simulation exist and look like reality "from the inside". I really like Iain M. Banks moral argument against universe being simulated. No intelligence capable of simulating it would be immoral enough to create something so horrible. Unless they are a total bastard. So it's not a 100%.
In science fiction it's common to have species that are so far advanced that humans are like ants to them. For all we know, our reality could be a petri dish sitting under the couch of an alien dorm room.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#47"The argument assumes that given one state of human existence, it is possible to calculate a distinct next state. And then a state after that. That is, if we had a powerful enough computer to store the state of every single atom, and calculate their interactions, we could play through time in that existence." Why are you assuming this to be true? Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it's impossible to perfect…
It's also naive to think that everything can be calculated by a computer, at some point the calculations become so enormous that the energy requirement approaches infinity.
> at some point the calculations become so enormous that the energy requirement approaches infinity.
No, they really don't. You might say that the energy requirement approaches Graham's Number, or TREE(3), and maybe that's somewhat plausible, but Graham's Number and TREE(3) are both minisculely insignificant compared to infinity. If you ever counted that high, you'd be no closer to reaching infinity than you were when you started.
But who says that Graham's Number or TREE(3) are large numbers in the universe doing the simulating? Why would the simulating universe be as incomprehensibly tiny and simple as ours is?
Oh sure, our universe looks big to us. But who are we to judge its size?
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#48This feels similar to something I came up with a while back; for various reasons[0], I hope it isn't true.
https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/mathematica...
[0] Boltzmann brains are cognitively unstable, because the logic leading to them says you should expect to be one, but also that they have exponentially increasingly false "memories" the further back they "remember", including the beliefs leading to the conclusion that you probably are one. If all maths is real, this is worse to at least the degree that Aleph one is bigger than Aleph null, possibly more.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#49A couple issues with the assumption of simplified view of determinism:
1.) It doesn't appear computationally feasible to simulate general relativity
2.) Quantum mechanics is described by probability distribution equations that don't have "states" but superpositions of states
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#50This is similar to David Lewis's modal realism, which says that every possible world is real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism There isn't really much of a connection between this and Bostrom's simulation argument. The simulation argument is about calculating the probability that we live in a simulated universe based on certain assumptions about human behavior and technological development. Bostrom's argum…
> we can explain everything that we experience in terms of quantum field theory and general relativity Everything we experience, except experience itself. Conscious/qualia/whatever is still… well, none but God knows what it is, and I have no evidence for the existence of any god let alone that one.
That's because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, not part of fundamental physics. Every atom in your brain behaves according to the laws of particle physics, and somehow consciousness emerges out of that. Our theories of neuroscience aren't developed enough to explain it yet, but there isn't any reason to believe that there is something magical or non-physical going on.