4 ms·

it appears you are insisting that regardless of a simluation existing the laws of physics must be the same for those inside and outside the simulation. that do

it appears you are insisting that regardless of a simluation existing the laws of physics must be the same for those inside and outside the simulation. that doesnt make any sense to me. If i create a simluation in my computer of a world without gravity, to the inhabitants of that simulation, gravity does not and never has existed. similarly - what we understand to be the laws of physics could have been laws that were designed for our simulation but have no bearing on the laws that govern the world in which the computer simulating us exists.

Houshalter 10y ago
But that's not the simulation argument. That's not related to what Elon Musk is saying at all. The simulation argument is about simulations of our own universe, within our own universe. It's a very specific claim about the parent universe, and the nature of our simulation. As opposed to more general simulations, which can't make any predictions at all and tell us nothing.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The simulation argument is about simulations of our own universe, within our own universe. The original simulation argument paper is about simulations intended to simulate the historical predecessors of the simulations creators in their own universe, but, even so, any anomalies from the approximation of the physical laws of the root universe used in the simulated universe would only be detectable by reference to the root universe, from the perspective of those within the simulation, the behavior of the simulation would be the physical laws of the universe they live in. (This is equally true in the more general case where the intent of those creating the simulation is not specifically to do an "ancestor simulation" in a universe approximating the physical laws of their own universe, but restricting to the scenario envisioned in the original paper doesn't change it at all.)
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    >the behavior of the simulation would be the physical laws of the universe they live in. That's just a tautology. Yes the code of the simulation are the laws of physics for the beings living in the simulation. But the point of a historical simulation is to simulate your own universe. Not a completely different universe. We should expect simulated Earth to be exactly identical to real Earth. Or at least you shouldn't be able to tell the difference. So we should expect the laws of physics to appear the same, but things that require lots of computing power should fail. We shouldn't be able to simulate universes within our own simulation. That would be a pointless waste of computing power.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > We should expect simulated Earth to be exactly identical to real Earth. If a best-effort ancestor simulation is made, we should expect the laws of the simulation to be identical to the laws of the root universe to the limit of the resolution of the simulation. > Or at least you shouldn't be able to tell the difference. So we should expect the laws of physics to appear the same, but things that require lots of computing power should fail. Except, that if we are in the simulation, we have no reference point as to what the actual laws of physics are in the root universe, so we have no way to distinguish between our universe being the root universe operating by the "real" laws of physics and our universe being a simulation which fails in some respect with regard to the root universe. The only way to detect the latter case is to be in the root universe and observing the simulation. Which we could do for a simulation we create, but not for a simulation we are in. (And, the "things requiring lots of computing power should fail" expectation is unwarranted, at least from the perspective of being something that could be observed from inside of the simulation.)

Houshalter 10y ago

But that's not the simulation argument. That's not related to what Elon Musk is saying at all. The simulation argument is about simulations of our own universe, within our own universe. It's a very specific claim about the parent universe, and the nature of our simulation. As opposed to more general simulations, which can't make any predictions at all and tell us nothing.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The simulation argument is about simulations of our own universe, within our own universe. The original simulation argument paper is about simulations intended to simulate the historical predecessors of the simulations creators in their own universe, but, even so, any anomalies from the approximation of the physical laws of the root universe used in the simulated universe would only be detectable by reference to the root universe, from the perspective of those within the simulation, the behavior of the simulation would be the physical laws of the universe they live in. (This is equally true in the more general case where the intent of those creating the simulation is not specifically to do an "ancestor simulation" in a universe approximating the physical laws of their own universe, but restricting to the scenario envisioned in the original paper doesn't change it at all.)
- Houshalter 10y ago
  >the behavior of the simulation would be the physical laws of the universe they live in. That's just a tautology. Yes the code of the simulation are the laws of physics for the beings living in the simulation. But the point of a historical simulation is to simulate your own universe. Not a completely different universe. We should expect simulated Earth to be exactly identical to real Earth. Or at least you shouldn't be able to tell the difference. So we should expect the laws of physics to appear the same, but things that require lots of computing power should fail. We shouldn't be able to simulate universes within our own simulation. That would be a pointless waste of computing power.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > We should expect simulated Earth to be exactly identical to real Earth. If a best-effort ancestor simulation is made, we should expect the laws of the simulation to be identical to the laws of the root universe to the limit of the resolution of the simulation. > Or at least you shouldn't be able to tell the difference. So we should expect the laws of physics to appear the same, but things that require lots of computing power should fail. Except, that if we are in the simulation, we have no reference point as to what the actual laws of physics are in the root universe, so we have no way to distinguish between our universe being the root universe operating by the "real" laws of physics and our universe being a simulation which fails in some respect with regard to the root universe. The only way to detect the latter case is to be in the root universe and observing the simulation. Which we could do for a simulation we create, but not for a simulation we are in. (And, the "things requiring lots of computing power should fail" expectation is unwarranted, at least from the perspective of being something that could be observed from inside of the simulation.)