4 ms·

Why do you (and others) tend towards arguments suggesting simulations? To me, the language here is important. Both simulation and computation imply (to me) a t

by duaneb 11y ago

Why do you (and others) tend towards arguments suggesting simulations? To me, the language here is important. Both simulation and computation imply (to me) a tool and a user of the tool. Even a broader interpretation of computation as, umm, the efficient transfer of precise information through spacetime in certain shapes (which is easily providable by our understanding of physics today) requires an observer to extract the computation from the otherwise non-semantic system. It definitely makes sense to think of the universe as a projection of a higher dimension, or a holograph, or however you want to look at it, but that's a far cry from implying a simulation. EDIT: hologram -> holograph

madaxe_again 11y ago
A simulation doesn't mean that there is a simulator - just that what we consider real may be a projection of something else. As you say, the holographic universe principle can equally answer this. That said, the simulation argument strongly pushes in favour of a simulated reality - particularly when you consider that there is no need for it to be real time, or of the entire universe. In short if we ever gain the capability to accurately simulate a small corner of the universe, then it stands to reason that someone further up the hylaean flow (apologies to Stephenson) also has. Hell, maybe the rotation of distant galaxies is off because they're just sprites ;)
- padobson 11y ago
  Hell, maybe the rotation of distant galaxies is off because they're just sprites So there's probably some other simulation of our universe where they tried to do models, but it was too slow. If not, then the simulator introduced a pre-mature optimization. The existential ramifications of such a development inefficiency are palpable!
criddell 11y ago
What do you feel about the mathematical universe hypothesis[1]? If I understand it correctly (and I probably don't), it says that the universe is literally mathematics. Not that it's a manifestation of mathematics or can be modeled by mathematics, but is 100% mathematics. I think that fits the computation model and doesn't require an observer or operator. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...
- Retra 11y ago
  Mathematics is a human language for studying the structure of various experiences. To say the universe "is" mathematics without saying what mathematics is doesn't really say much at all. You might as well say it's magic. And, saying that it's a "mathematical structure" is just saying that it's a structure that humans can apply mathematics to model. So there's really no mechanism for this to be true, except in the trivial "the universe has structure" sense, which also tells you (basically) nothing, because humans can't even perceive things that don't have structure, nor can we reason about them.
  - criddell 11y ago
    > Mathematics is a human language for studying the structure of various experiences I think you are getting hung up on the semiotics of mathematics which is indeed a human construct. The idea of "1 + 1 = 2" is true no matter how (or if) you represent the idea. > saying that it's a "mathematical structure" is just saying that it's a structure that humans can apply mathematics to model That's not what the theory says (AFAIK). The mathematical universe hypothesis says that there is nothing in the universe, it's all just mathematics. Edit: Think about it this way: if you could simulate a universe and in that simulated universe you modeled people and all the stuff around them, what would you tell those simulated people with their simulated free well what a table is made out of? It's all mathematics, right?
    - Retra 11y ago
      The math universe hypotheses assumes a very strict Platonist POV, which is not really a justifiable position, in my experience. >The idea of "1 + 1 = 2" is true no matter how (or if) you represent the idea. That's really a triviality, though. If you have the idea that 1+1=2, then yes, it's true. Usually people say mathematical theorems are true in "all possible universes", but the way they select which universes are possible is... by applying logic that works in this universe. 1+1=2 is only true because it doesn't contradict our experiences. It's useful. In another universe, it may not be useful, and thus wouldn't be true there. >if you could simulate a universe and in that simulated universe you modeled people and all the stuff around them, what would you tell those simulated people with their simulated free well what a table is made out of? I would put words in whatever order was most useful to them to employ for the construction and manipulation of tables. Anything else would be meaningless. You might as well just say "magic" if they can't use it.

by duaneb 11y ago

madaxe_again 11y ago

A simulation doesn't mean that there is a simulator - just that what we consider real may be a projection of something else. As you say, the holographic universe principle can equally answer this. That said, the simulation argument strongly pushes in favour of a simulated reality - particularly when you consider that there is no need for it to be real time, or of the entire universe. In short if we ever gain the capability to accurately simulate a small corner of the universe, then it stands to reason that someone further up the hylaean flow (apologies to Stephenson) also has. Hell, maybe the rotation of distant galaxies is off because they're just sprites ;)

padobson 11y ago
Hell, maybe the rotation of distant galaxies is off because they're just sprites So there's probably some other simulation of our universe where they tried to do models, but it was too slow. If not, then the simulator introduced a pre-mature optimization. The existential ramifications of such a development inefficiency are palpable!

criddell 11y ago

What do you feel about the mathematical universe hypothesis[1]? If I understand it correctly (and I probably don't), it says that the universe is literally mathematics. Not that it's a manifestation of mathematics or can be modeled by mathematics, but is 100% mathematics. I think that fits the computation model and doesn't require an observer or operator. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...

Retra 11y ago
Mathematics is a human language for studying the structure of various experiences. To say the universe "is" mathematics without saying what mathematics is doesn't really say much at all. You might as well say it's magic. And, saying that it's a "mathematical structure" is just saying that it's a structure that humans can apply mathematics to model. So there's really no mechanism for this to be true, except in the trivial "the universe has structure" sense, which also tells you (basically) nothing, because humans can't even perceive things that don't have structure, nor can we reason about them.
- criddell 11y ago
  > Mathematics is a human language for studying the structure of various experiences I think you are getting hung up on the semiotics of mathematics which is indeed a human construct. The idea of "1 + 1 = 2" is true no matter how (or if) you represent the idea. > saying that it's a "mathematical structure" is just saying that it's a structure that humans can apply mathematics to model That's not what the theory says (AFAIK). The mathematical universe hypothesis says that there is nothing in the universe, it's all just mathematics. Edit: Think about it this way: if you could simulate a universe and in that simulated universe you modeled people and all the stuff around them, what would you tell those simulated people with their simulated free well what a table is made out of? It's all mathematics, right?
  - Retra 11y ago
    The math universe hypotheses assumes a very strict Platonist POV, which is not really a justifiable position, in my experience. >The idea of "1 + 1 = 2" is true no matter how (or if) you represent the idea. That's really a triviality, though. If you have the idea that 1+1=2, then yes, it's true. Usually people say mathematical theorems are true in "all possible universes", but the way they select which universes are possible is... by applying logic that works in this universe. 1+1=2 is only true because it doesn't contradict our experiences. It's useful. In another universe, it may not be useful, and thus wouldn't be true there. >if you could simulate a universe and in that simulated universe you modeled people and all the stuff around them, what would you tell those simulated people with their simulated free well what a table is made out of? I would put words in whatever order was most useful to them to employ for the construction and manipulation of tables. Anything else would be meaningless. You might as well just say "magic" if they can't use it.