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

91–100 of 164 posts

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

#91

Post by mannykannot »

gus_massa wrote: post #71
kkoncevicius wrote: post #59

Very interesting story. After reading a few thoughts came to mind: 1. I don't agree with the "midpoint stability" argument. Since these are simulations - the real one is on the top, but there is no "bottom simulation", since every simulation below is also running a simulation. Hence there is no stable middle point - since there is no middle in the first place. 2. About simulating the future. It seems quite obvious th…

About 1: There are some recursions that after some iterations approach a stable cycle, in the most simple cases it can be a cycle of length 2, like A -> B -> A -> B -> ... but there are longer cycles, and in some cases no cycles at all. This example has a lot of possible behaviors changing the parameter r https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map

I don't think there are any causal cycles here - I don't think a simulation can have a causal effect in the sumulation (or real world) which launched it. Even though the simulator can observe the simulated, which might seem to provide a channel for communication, the latter cannot do anything that was not determined by the rules set up by the simulator.

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

#92

Post by mannykannot »

throw0101a wrote: post #81
lmarcos wrote: post #78

Something I have been thinking about related to this story: we, as humans, will never know what reality is (not just "our" reality as in "our" universe, but "everything"). You either a) have to accept the idea of infinite as in realities have always existed and have bootstrapped inner realities with time. They never "were created", they just "always existed". So whenever we get to know the details of reality N, we do…

> But as humans I don't think our brains are wired in a way to understand "there was nothing before something", we will always ask ourselves "what is the cause of that?". Parmenides would like a word: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing One also has to ask " what keeps reality/realities existing? ". Why doesn't everything simply just go poof into non-existence? Aristotle (and Thomas Aquinas, in…

This conclusion requires, as an independent postulate, the premise that there cannot be infinite regress, which, if asserted without independent justification, amounts to begging the question.

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

#93

Post by curiousllama »

Lerc wrote: post #66

You could give this somewhat of a horror ending by having the characters realise, after figuring out the implication of turning the simulation off, that the top level would not have had the black sphere appear and as such would have no reason to keep their simulation running and were about to turn it off.

Of course - why do you think the story ended?

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

#95

Post by throw0101a »

mannykannot wrote: post #92
throw0101a wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as humans I don't think our brains are wired in a way to understand "there was nothing before something", we will always ask ourselves "what is the cause of that?". Parmenides would like a word: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing One also has to ask " what keeps reality/realities existing? ". Why doesn't everything simply just go poof into non-existence? Aristotle (and Thomas Aquinas, in…

This conclusion requires, as an independent postulate, the premise that there cannot be infinite regress, which, if asserted without independent justification, amounts to begging the question.

> If every constituent member of that order is causally dependent on something prior to itself, then it appears that the order in question must consist of an infinite chain of causes. Yet Aquinas denies this implication (fourth premise): if the causal order is infinite, then (obviously) there could be no first cause. But without a first cause, then (necessarily) there could be no subsequent effects—including the intermediate efficient causes and ultimate effect (ST Ia 2.3). In other words, the absence of a first cause would imply an absence of the causal order we observe. But since this implication is manifestly false, he says, there must be a first cause, “to which everyone gives the name God” (Ibid.).

* https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH2b

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

#97

Post by beaconstudios »

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 sounds similar to "Mother of Learning", another rationalist-adjacent work of fiction about a universe with logical, well structured magic, and a student who gets trapped in a groundhog day scenario: https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/21220/mother-of-learning

Its an excellent story, but very long. I'm not sure if it's longer than Homestuck, but the length is comparable.

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

#99

Post by GordonS »

tobmlt wrote: post #13

Ian M. Banks novel “surface detail” comes to mind. Please note it is better than the tawdry wiki write up. Somehow, it gets similar points across — similar to this essay, but deeper in feeling. Let me also say the authors here have done really well with so short a format. To paraphrase my toddler son, I want more story!

I've been an avid fantasy fan since forever, but I'm a relative latecomer to sci-fi novels.

I recently finally completed making my way through all of the Culture novels - thoroughly enjoyed every one, and was kind of sad to have reached the end!

Have you come across any other sci-fi authors that approach the style of Ian M. Banks? Otherwise, any recommendations for other sci-fi with the depth that the Culture series had?

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

#100

Post by lmarcos »

seqizz wrote: post #89
lmarcos wrote: post #78

Something I have been thinking about related to this story: we, as humans, will never know what reality is (not just "our" reality as in "our" universe, but "everything"). You either a) have to accept the idea of infinite as in realities have always existed and have bootstrapped inner realities with time. They never "were created", they just "always existed". So whenever we get to know the details of reality N, we do…

But isn't "reality", in this usage, enforces the idea of always having the N-1? Suppose you can jump between realities (duh) and you've found the reality 0 by asking the right questions on every step, what would be the first question to ask there? Edit: Just to support that I am on 2nd solution :)

> what would be the first question to ask there?

I would ask: what originated reality 0. If the answer is "something" then reality 0 is not reality 0. If the answer is "nothing. It existed since ever" then I would be dissatisfied because my brain cannot conceive that.

Post reply on HN