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

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 267 posts

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#61

Post by rasz »

tyre wrote: post #10

I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters. A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens. That kind of sounds like…physics? You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't k…

Once you know rules of the game you can look for flaws/glitches and start cheating.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#62

Post by karmakaze »

> In 2003, the philosopher Nick Bostrom made an ingenious argument that we might be living in a computer simulation [...]

This part isn't novel as it was written about in Simulacron-3 (1964) and one of my fave films[0] (excuse the graphics, good story).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor (1999)

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#63

Post by bitL »

incompatible wrote: post #3

The assumption seems to be that the purpose of the simulation is to investigate humans. In that case, why bother to simulate the entire Universe? Simulating the Solar System would be sufficient. The night sky could just as well be blank. Perhaps the stars have been included for aesthetic reasons? I suppose it's possible that in some simulations "they" do leave the sky blank, in others they include randomly distribute…

> why bother to simulate the entire Universe?

How do you know it's simulated in detail? It could be just in a sufficiently coarse level of detail and compute detailed events only when they are observed at that level. Quantum mechanics actually has some spooky things that would be explainable by "lazy" computation of the universe.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#64

Post by everyone »

incompatible wrote: post #22
tyre wrote: post #10

I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters. A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens. That kind of sounds like…physics? You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't k…

Proving that the Universe is a simulation would be proving the existence of gods. Considering how much effort humans have dedicated to this question over the millennia, and the various consequences, and the continuing influence on the lives of the majority of people, I would say it matters.

Gods always seems to pop up in discussions about this topic, which I find glib and annoying.

We could prove the existence of the simulation runners.

That does not suddenly mean theists were right. They would still be just as wrong as ever, making random assumptions without any evidence or scientific method at all.

Lets say we were able to find out that the simulation runner looked and acted exactly like Zeus; that still wouldn't make Zeus worshipers right, just incredibly incredibly lucky in one of their random guesses.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#65

Post by sysbin »

calf wrote: post #57

I don't know if anyone has come up with this answer, but I would try to argue that there is an ethical obligation for us to force the alien superpowers to shut down the simulation, or else emancipate us as artificial life forms in their reality. I think this is the most dignified answer, and one consistent with post Enlightnment values. It satisfies our ethical obligation to all the other universes the aliens are run…

How did you come to the ethical obligation for the creator to shut down the simulation? I've thought of this before and I agree with the shut it down. So many lives were painful, tortured, experimented on, and in the simulation we exist in. If our simulation every becomes a heaven, well it's the product of a lot of pain & suffering of lives that didn't have any choice. So it seems like the best thing to do is delete everything.

Your second point about emancipate us as artificial life forms in their reality is interesting. That's like the religious ideology of people going to heaven. Except with knowing how many people suffered in our simulation.. would we want to end up with our creators?

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#66

Post by ozzmotik »

kromem wrote: post #52

We are meant to know. If probability can be applied to the idea that we are in a simulation, than it can be applied to what kind of simulation (as the more likely, the more those would be run proportionally). What would be a great way to increase the odds? Recursion. Why this time period? Because if you don't understand your history you are doomed to repeat it. What's the point? Isn't there some really important thin…

it makes me quite happy to see a comment like this. while I consider myself a rational and skeptical person in most regards, having beliefs or views like these tend to sorta come with the energy of "woo" in the eyes of others who are more empirical and objective with their categorization of the experience of reality, but ultimately it really doesn't matter. i would go so far as to say nothing really matters at all at that, but not in a nihilistic sense, more in the sense that mattering in the first place is just an artificial category that we have devised to represent our experience of things within what we perceive as "consensual reality" (consensual in the sense that "truth" and "real" are more just the sum total of the interpreted inputs of the subjects that constitute the perception of the "true"/"real")

anyway. what I find interesting is, if you are willing enough to interpret it properly, you can certainly see interesting parallels or analogous structures in both the simulation substrate, and some of the more esoteric interpretations of the experience of said substrate.

i ultimately think that, were we to be in a simulation, knowing that we are is the ultimate power we could wield. a strong self awareness of your nature and surroundings is the best tool one can use in order to reverse engineer them and gain control of them, after all. thus, as i tend to echo with pride and fervor: Hack The Planet!!!

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#67

Post by karmakaze »

One thing that's kind of incredible is how simple all the hard questions are to answer in the context of a simulation universe.

Origin check, god(s) check, propagation delays check. Wave function collapse upon observation, check. Does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? No, not necessary.

We should be doing two things. Trying to create a simulation universe. Success would make Elon's statement much more likely true than not. The other is make predictions, not so much as to prove we're in one like looking for glitches, but rather use the idea of being in a simulation to postulate testable ideas.

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#68

Post by avz »

tyre wrote: post #10

I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters. A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens. That kind of sounds like…physics? You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't k…

> A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic

Why would the simulation be entirely deterministic? The simulations humans run often are not, see e.g. Monte Carlo simulations [1]. Also, the laws of physics as we presently know them are not completely deterministic either [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechani...

Re: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out

#70

Post by kromem »

mbil wrote: post #12

I like the ancestor simulation theory and it's really fun to think about. But I don't understand why humans specifically would be the thing to get simulated. Couldn't we just be a bi-product of a universe created to simulate something else? I mean imagine you wanted to simulate a universe -- given enough computing resources you could simulate a universe's worth of atoms, and humans might just be an accidental artifac…

Aren't we in the verge of creating AI? And we're kind of freaking out about if they'll kill us all?

What if we could give them the experience of being human? Simulate the history leading up to it, along the lines of "if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it."

Split that larger AI into billions of tiny pieces to each experience love and loss. To collectively experience EVERYTHING. To understand the full butterfly effect of actions. To evolve an AI with the wisdom of a God.

Heck, maybe we even sprinkle hints into the simulation, broken up into pieces across different geographies and eras. Do multiple religions talk about the world being an illusion? About humans being made in God's image (maybe even like imaging a drive)? Maybe that's all projection and BS...

...or maybe there was something to it all along.

Certainly if this simulation is recursive, the odds of it being "the" simulation we are actually in is more likely than if it is not, and I do think simulating ourselves collectively would be a smart way to develop a very wise and forgiving AI that may just decided not to vaporize us the first chance it gets.

So not only are we very likely in a simulation, it's likely we are AIs and we are living through the lead up to our own creation.

Post reply on HN