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

On whether we're living in a simulation

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 206 posts

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#81

Post by slowmovintarget »

lukan wrote: post #7

"If they say, maybe you should live your life differently, just from knowing that you might be in a simulation, I respond: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague feeling that this discussion predates the 80 or so years we’ve had digital computers! Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly dif…

I loved Stephen Wolfram's answer to that. He did a recent interview with Brian Greene and Brian asked him his take on the simulation question. Stephen replied that he always found it amusing that self-professed atheists would ask the simulation question because the next obvious question is "Who's simulation is it? Who's operating the computers running such a simulation?"

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#82

Post by nertirs »

Beijinger wrote: post #70
nertirs wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there are no qualities, that distinguish a simulation from reality. For all we know, we might as well be living in the worst simulation with unrealistic physics and poor graphics, which was made by a regular student on a weekend, who received a C- for effort. If the simulation is already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particle…

"If the simulation is ,already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles" That would be very unlikely, again, mathematics would likely be the same and this limits options. The guys simulation us would be bound to mathematics and limits (e.g. computational crunching power). In "grand theft auto" you also just simulated/render, what is necessary at…

You assume, that time has to pass at the same speed in the simulation as in the simulating world. Even with our current computing power we could simulate very complex scenarios, if we spend a year of continuous computing on a nanosecond of said scenario.

You assume, that the simulating world is bound by the same restrictions as the simulation. Maybe the difference between our simulated world and the real world is the same like the difference between minecraft and our world.

We have trouble to predict, what the world will look like in a hundred years. And we have thousands of years of data on both humanity and our world. What hope do we have to state even one true fact about a world, that is simulating ours?

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#83

Post by pavel_lishin »

steve1977 wrote: post #39
vidarh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That variant is simply Pascal's Wager. It's more interesting to ask whether, of we are in a simulation, it is possible to prove and/or find "escapes". All our experience with computational sandboxes so far is that preventing information leaks or escapes is extremely hard. Of course, we still have the problem that if we fi d nothing we don't know what that means. From my perspective, I'm on the side that it's a fun ph…

The only thing that could escape is information, or not? If we „are“ a simulation, we could not leave it anyway. We could just maybe communicate with the outside, but not go there .

If we're just code being executed on some machine, we could be executed on a different machine - one that can move around in "their" world. Basically, getting uploaded into an android frame.

(Assuming that their world would even be comprehensible to us; but again, as others have pointed out, so much of this is effectively theological...)

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#85

Post by lenerdenator »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #81
lukan wrote: post #7

"If they say, maybe you should live your life differently, just from knowing that you might be in a simulation, I respond: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague feeling that this discussion predates the 80 or so years we’ve had digital computers! Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly dif…

I loved Stephen Wolfram's answer to that. He did a recent interview with Brian Greene and Brian asked him his take on the simulation question. Stephen replied that he always found it amusing that self-professed atheists would ask the simulation question because the next obvious question is "Who's simulation is it? Who's operating the computers running such a simulation?"

Everything that you've seen over the last, eh, 15 years in the tech industry seems to be a bunch of rationalists (who often tend to be non-religious) trying to reconstruct the irrational institutions of spirituality.

Simulation theory is basically positing there's a higher power. Eternal life has been replaced with efforts to digitize the human consciousness for indefinite storage. Pilgrimages have been replaced with Ted Talks and conferences. Certain religious ceremonies that alter consciousness have been replaced with microdosing. Asceticism has been replaced by hustle culture. Saints have been replaced with entrepreneurs who have spent money to cultivate a favorable public image. Religious charity has been replaced with effective altruism.

If you're in a more irreligious region like SV or the Bay Area, it's apparently not as easy to suss out, but if you're from the Midwest, you can see it clear as day.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#87

Post by andrewflnr »

vidarh wrote: post #22
lukan wrote: post #7

"If they say, maybe you should live your life differently, just from knowing that you might be in a simulation, I respond: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague feeling that this discussion predates the 80 or so years we’ve had digital computers! Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly dif…

That variant is simply Pascal's Wager. It's more interesting to ask whether, of we are in a simulation, it is possible to prove and/or find "escapes". All our experience with computational sandboxes so far is that preventing information leaks or escapes is extremely hard. Of course, we still have the problem that if we fi d nothing we don't know what that means. From my perspective, I'm on the side that it's a fun ph…

> All our experience with computational sandboxes so far is that preventing information leaks or escapes is extremely hard.

I believe this is due to the path-dependent nature of our hardware architecture, not anything fundamental. x86 is not really designed with virtualization in mind. Theoretically, perfect airtight simulation is the primary ability of computers, and we're just too sloppy to exploit it properly.

Another angle: imagine you build a computer, simulation-optimized or not, and then run a physics simulation program on it. Can entities inside the simulation get info about your CPU architecture? Not really, not unless you really messed up (let's assume you don't make any gross concessions to performance over correctness).

If you have the ability to simulate anything close to our universe, I just don't think it's that hard to make it actually correct and therefore inescapable.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#88

Post by gavinray »

lenerdenator wrote: post #85
slowmovintarget wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved Stephen Wolfram's answer to that. He did a recent interview with Brian Greene and Brian asked him his take on the simulation question. Stephen replied that he always found it amusing that self-professed atheists would ask the simulation question because the next obvious question is "Who's simulation is it? Who's operating the computers running such a simulation?"

Everything that you've seen over the last, eh, 15 years in the tech industry seems to be a bunch of rationalists (who often tend to be non-religious) trying to reconstruct the irrational institutions of spirituality. Simulation theory is basically positing there's a higher power. Eternal life has been replaced with efforts to digitize the human consciousness for indefinite storage. Pilgrimages have been replaced with…

In what form does subscribing to the simulation theory imply "higher power"?

Oxford defines the term as "a god or divine being."

Why is it so absurd to think that there have existed or do exist beings with more intelligence and computational resources than humans?

It seems MORE absurd to me to think that, across all of the infinite universe(s), humans are the only intelligent, self-aware creature capable of scientific progress.

Re: On whether we're living in a simulation

#90

Post by newthrow »

williamcotton wrote: post #73
vidarh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an atheist, the simulation argument, or variants about it, is the closest I've come to considering the belief in a "god". I still stick by my atheism on the basis that I don't feel someone simulating us would really meet what we think of as a deity, and in that sense it has even made me see a "god" as less likely, because I'd consider it more likely that if there were to be anything outside our universe it's just…

Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have faith in! To someone who engages with theology, beyond a happy little bedtime story to make me feel comfortable with my own demise, the Simulationists are in the same ballpark, but without the test of time and some important calls to an almost unattainable set…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN