6 ms·

> 4. A complex simulation with many long-lived agents. Maybe someday we'll discover that this was exactly how the ancestor simulation we're living in started.

ericjang 10y ago
If we're living in a simulation and our creators see that we're running our own simulations, they may terminate our process to avoid nested virtualization.
- dlubarov 10y ago
  Why would our creators want to avoid nested simulation?
  - guelo 10y ago
    The singularity would probably overheat the host computer.
    - foota 10y ago
      System going down for maintenance now
      - joelg 10y ago
        It may have been down for maintenance for millennia since your comment, and just come back now, but none of us noticed! Insert your favorite Matrix déjà vu reference here.
    - dlubarov 10y ago
      Possibly. Our simulation might be run on hypercomputers whose performance isn't affected by that sort of complexity. Heat might not even exist in the host universe's physics.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  But by doing so they could invoke the wrath of the grandparent simulation. Logic leads to an implicit understanding that all recursive simulations must be allowed.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  They probably already figured it out if they can build a simulation this huge.
mbrock 10y ago
I tried it for a course in college, "Simulation of Complex Systems". Our goal was to get genetic programs to evolve tribe or herd behavior. After fixing the energy conservation bug that made it evolutionarily successful to immediately eat your own children, I ended up intelligently designing some basic DNA on the night before our presentation.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  I played a similar game on the Tandy computer in the 80s.
- cynicaldevil 10y ago
  Evolutionarily beneficial to eat your own children? Could you explain how?
  - mbrock 10y ago
    It didn't work in the long run but it was a common mutation in the early game, where two creatures would keep breeding and cannibalizing because the strange simulation environment gave them life energy for a long time.
- praveer13 10y ago
  This particular subject interests me to no end. Here are a few resources that might be helpful to anyone interested https://www.complexityexplorer.org/ https://www.complexityexplorer.org/ http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xcomplexit.html http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xcomplexit.html http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~simon/page6/page6.html http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~simon/page6/page6.html
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Life-Frontier-Computers-Biology/dp/0679743898 https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Life-Frontier-Computers-Bi...
JackFr 10y ago
That we're living in a simulation is taken for granted. On the other hand the idea that we can comprehend the nature of the simulation or its creators should not be taken for granted. Does a glider in Conway's Game of Life comprehend the hardware its running on? Does it know the mind of Conway?
brianchu 10y ago
It's funny to see grown adults in tech taking the simulation idea seriously just because Elon Musk said it. I was interested in science fiction in high school and thought about these things, but I concluded they were worthless. Why? It is ontologically no different from 1) solipsism, a philosophical idea that even most philosophers considered worthless centuries ago, or more loosely 2) belief in a higher deity who created the world. It's completely unfalsifiable. The answer to the question clarifies nothing about our understanding of the world [1] and furthermore has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how you ought to live your life. [1] Even if you conclude we live in a simulation, we will never know for sure anything about the nature of the simulation or the nature of the world outside the simulation.
- joeldg 10y ago
  "clarifies nothing about our understanding of the world" ... LOL
- vikiomega9 10y ago
  > Why? It is ontologically no different from 1) solipsism Sure, but it is vastly interesting to think about, and imagine about and have meandering ideas about. There's probably also trappings of psychoanalysis in here somewhere.
- dsacco 10y ago
  You can expand your reasoning to include all religion, while you're at it. And anything anyone does that evidences a belief in something irrational or unfalsifiable. The thing is, you're not wrong. You're just kind of mean and arrogant to reduce a multiplicity of nuanced worldviews that many people care about very deeply to simple meaninglessness.
  - brianchu 10y ago
    Let's not resort to calling people names. Your argument is ironically the reductive one. I have complete respect for people who choose to believe in an organized religion. But it remains the case that whether or not you can prove a higher deity, that in of itself has no bearing on how you should live your life. You can disprove the existence of god and still choose to believe in religion. You can prove the existence and still choose to not believe in any religious system. So proving the existence is worthless.

ericjang 10y ago

If we're living in a simulation and our creators see that we're running our own simulations, they may terminate our process to avoid nested virtualization.

dlubarov 10y ago
Why would our creators want to avoid nested simulation?
- guelo 10y ago
  The singularity would probably overheat the host computer.
  - foota 10y ago
    System going down for maintenance now
    - joelg 10y ago
      It may have been down for maintenance for millennia since your comment, and just come back now, but none of us noticed! Insert your favorite Matrix déjà vu reference here.
  - dlubarov 10y ago
    Possibly. Our simulation might be run on hypercomputers whose performance isn't affected by that sort of complexity. Heat might not even exist in the host universe's physics.
jcoffland 10y ago
But by doing so they could invoke the wrath of the grandparent simulation. Logic leads to an implicit understanding that all recursive simulations must be allowed.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
They probably already figured it out if they can build a simulation this huge.

mbrock 10y ago

I tried it for a course in college, "Simulation of Complex Systems". Our goal was to get genetic programs to evolve tribe or herd behavior. After fixing the energy conservation bug that made it evolutionarily successful to immediately eat your own children, I ended up intelligently designing some basic DNA on the night before our presentation.

jcoffland 10y ago
I played a similar game on the Tandy computer in the 80s.
cynicaldevil 10y ago
Evolutionarily beneficial to eat your own children? Could you explain how?
- mbrock 10y ago
  It didn't work in the long run but it was a common mutation in the early game, where two creatures would keep breeding and cannibalizing because the strange simulation environment gave them life energy for a long time.
praveer13 10y ago
This particular subject interests me to no end. Here are a few resources that might be helpful to anyone interested https://www.complexityexplorer.org/ https://www.complexityexplorer.org/ http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xcomplexit.html http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xcomplexit.html http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~simon/page6/page6.html http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~simon/page6/page6.html
- mindcrime 10y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Life-Frontier-Computers-Biology/dp/0679743898 https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Life-Frontier-Computers-Bi...

JackFr 10y ago

That we're living in a simulation is taken for granted. On the other hand the idea that we can comprehend the nature of the simulation or its creators should not be taken for granted. Does a glider in Conway's Game of Life comprehend the hardware its running on? Does it know the mind of Conway?

brianchu 10y ago

It's funny to see grown adults in tech taking the simulation idea seriously just because Elon Musk said it. I was interested in science fiction in high school and thought about these things, but I concluded they were worthless. Why? It is ontologically no different from 1) solipsism, a philosophical idea that even most philosophers considered worthless centuries ago, or more loosely 2) belief in a higher deity who created the world. It's completely unfalsifiable. The answer to the question clarifies nothing about our understanding of the world [1] and furthermore has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how you ought to live your life. [1] Even if you conclude we live in a simulation, we will never know for sure anything about the nature of the simulation or the nature of the world outside the simulation.

joeldg 10y ago
"clarifies nothing about our understanding of the world" ... LOL
vikiomega9 10y ago
> Why? It is ontologically no different from 1) solipsism Sure, but it is vastly interesting to think about, and imagine about and have meandering ideas about. There's probably also trappings of psychoanalysis in here somewhere.
dsacco 10y ago
You can expand your reasoning to include all religion, while you're at it. And anything anyone does that evidences a belief in something irrational or unfalsifiable. The thing is, you're not wrong. You're just kind of mean and arrogant to reduce a multiplicity of nuanced worldviews that many people care about very deeply to simple meaninglessness.
- brianchu 10y ago
  Let's not resort to calling people names. Your argument is ironically the reductive one. I have complete respect for people who choose to believe in an organized religion. But it remains the case that whether or not you can prove a higher deity, that in of itself has no bearing on how you should live your life. You can disprove the existence of god and still choose to believe in religion. You can prove the existence and still choose to not believe in any religious system. So proving the existence is worthless.