4 ms·

> But if that’s the case, we run into a paradox. The argument for living in a simulation is based on the laws of physics and logic. But if we are living a simul

> But if that’s the case, we run into a paradox. The argument for living in a simulation is based on the laws of physics and logic. But if we are living a simulation, we can’t trust those laws, so we have no basis to conclude we are living in a simulation. This is borderline nonsensical. The "laws of logic" (i.e. law of identity/non-contradiction, or propositional logic), are universal axioms that would not change regardless of whether we're in a simulation or not. The "laws of physics" could change, i.e. certain cosmological variables could be tweaked, but this wouldn't affect our ability to reason about things like this.

jplasmeier 10y ago
You're right, but I disagree with your argument that: "the 'laws of logic' are universal axioms that would not change." Axioms are not universal and have been modified or discarded throughout the progression of mathematics [0],[1],[2]. I suppose one could argue that their definition wouldn't change and whether or not one chooses to accept an axiom or not is left to the individual, though. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics) [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
- ibgib 10y ago
  > You're right, but I disagree with your argument that: "the 'laws of logic' are universal axioms that would not change." Axioms are not universal and have been modified or discarded throughout the progression of mathematics [0],[1],[2] I love that you point this out here. One of the interesting things is that even still today, as we speak, axioms and their utility are being debated. This stems from the second part of your reply: > I suppose one could argue... This is the fundamental reason I do not adhere to axiomatic systems in general. One could always argue any point, and so axioms from the get-go are "self-defeating". Fortunately with ibGib's logic, "self-defeating" is more equivalent to "in some given environment, some statement is not fit enough to survive." So any statement in environment X could conceivably be fit to survive in environment Y.
  - mercer 10y ago
    > This is the fundamental reason I do not adhere to axiomatic systems in general. Apologies if this is a stupid question, but aren't all systems fundamentally axiomatic?
    - ibgib 10y ago
      > Apologies if this is a stupid question It's not, and I think we all know that ;-) > aren't all systems fundamentally axiomatic? Both yes and no (and others). That fact that "one could always argue..." exists (as I mention in another comment), gives us the ability to say "no". And we could digress ad nauseam with these kinds meta-statements. It comes down to the economics of your decision whether or not to continue attending any given statement. That said, here is my reasoning for shying away from the given acceptance of Mathematics and axiomatic systems in general (bear in mind I used to be a math dude...800 math SAT, 36 math ACT, 5th place in state math tourney (1st place team), 0 days of homework) Consider the wikipedia definition of axiom: > An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' With that in mind, consider this: Once I recognize that I have produced a false statement (made a mistake), then thereafter I have a non-zero probability that any statement I make is also false. This includes any statements that I make that make other statements, i.e. systems. So any axiomatic system, wherein there is at least one statement that is "taken to be true", is built on a foundation of hubris - right from the start. So I personally have been on a long journey, where presently I am now working on the ibGib library which turns state into Goedelian numbers (content-addressable hashes of merkle trees/forests), essentially black-boxing "things" into a universe-sized fundamentally interconnected nodal network.
laumars 10y ago
Logic is just reasoning based on rules of validity. So while you're comments are true to a degree, they're also not entirely accurate as it would depend on context; ie on what you're applying the "laws of logic" to. In this instance the author is discussing logical reasoning in relation to our understanding of the laws of physics. If our understanding of the laws of physics is wrong then our logical deductions based on those laws would equally be wrong.
kingkawn 10y ago
logic is culture written over the carefully cultivated emotional state of certainty. It doesn't even have coherent transferrable meaning from one real world context to another, let alone across the cosmic multiverse.
M_Grey 10y ago
It's just kicking the can from "God" to "Aliens". Expecting sense from nonsense is the first problem here. This isn't even metaphysics, it's just amusing bullshit that was born from the classic: Journalist: "So, is it possible that X is true?" Scientist: "It's far more likely that A, B, C...Z are true, but we can't quite rule out X." Headline: "Scientists discover X!"
psyc 10y ago
I always find it curious that people can consider ideas that they have personally been aware of only for several decades to be ultimately universal.
empath75 10y ago
Yeah but if we're living in a simulation, we have no idea of what the laws of physics actually are or if it even makes sense to talk about such a thing. Logic doesn't really help at that point.
stanfordkid 10y ago
It's pretty simple: If you live inside the system and the system knows the experiments you are conducting it can modify the "results" of these experiments to fit a perceived set of axioms that hide the "true axioms". Think of it like Geometric level of detail in video games: when the observer is viewing a character from very far away a low-polygon mesh is displayed -- this is because the mesh only takes up a few pixels of screen space for the observer so rendering a high polygon mesh or a low polygon mesh is indistinguishable. Now when the character is closer to the observer a high polygon mesh with more detail is substituted. The observer can never tell that this trick is happening. If they designed an experiment to test for this the universe could simply spend more time fooling the observer. I am quite sure if we are living in a simulation it makes a lot of approximations. When we conduct complex experiments it simply computes better approximations so that our observed results fit the "axioms of physics".
- ibgib 10y ago
  I like your video game view of mesh counts, and I assume you're also including clipping as a special case of a 0-count mesh. And since we're programmers, I think there is another very useful vocabulary to use when talking about this: Eager vs lazy. When I open a tree view, it doesn't have to eagerly evaluate all of the contents of each node. It gives you the nodes that you are looking at and you have a decision as to what you want to open. This is precisely analogous to what you "pay attention to". So the "tricks" that you mention could be thought of in terms of lazy evaluations.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- charles-salvia 10y ago
  No, what you're saying is that the simulation would mess with our observations - but our basic logical axioms are not dependent on observations to be valid - that's why they're axioms! They are used as valid starting points in reasoning, and nothing the simulation does could change that.
andrewflnr 10y ago
You only have evidence that they're "universal" in this particular universe. Have you tested the laws of logic outside this universe? If so, congratulations, you've answered the whole question. No? Yeah, that's what I thought. All the evidence comes from inside the universe. All the evidence is suspect. There is no progress that can be made on this question without, effectively, divine revelation. Which would still be suspect.
pmoriarty 10y ago
What's going to happen to the universe if it breaks these "laws"? Is someone going to give it a ticket? And why would the universe need to conform to what makes sense to us small-brained monkeys?

jplasmeier 10y ago

You're right, but I disagree with your argument that: "the 'laws of logic' are universal axioms that would not change." Axioms are not universal and have been modified or discarded throughout the progression of mathematics [0],[1],[2]. I suppose one could argue that their definition wouldn't change and whether or not one chooses to accept an axiom or not is left to the individual, though. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics) [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

ibgib 10y ago
> You're right, but I disagree with your argument that: "the 'laws of logic' are universal axioms that would not change." Axioms are not universal and have been modified or discarded throughout the progression of mathematics [0],[1],[2] I love that you point this out here. One of the interesting things is that even still today, as we speak, axioms and their utility are being debated. This stems from the second part of your reply: > I suppose one could argue... This is the fundamental reason I do not adhere to axiomatic systems in general. One could always argue any point, and so axioms from the get-go are "self-defeating". Fortunately with ibGib's logic, "self-defeating" is more equivalent to "in some given environment, some statement is not fit enough to survive." So any statement in environment X could conceivably be fit to survive in environment Y.
- mercer 10y ago
  > This is the fundamental reason I do not adhere to axiomatic systems in general. Apologies if this is a stupid question, but aren't all systems fundamentally axiomatic?
  - ibgib 10y ago
    > Apologies if this is a stupid question It's not, and I think we all know that ;-) > aren't all systems fundamentally axiomatic? Both yes and no (and others). That fact that "one could always argue..." exists (as I mention in another comment), gives us the ability to say "no". And we could digress ad nauseam with these kinds meta-statements. It comes down to the economics of your decision whether or not to continue attending any given statement. That said, here is my reasoning for shying away from the given acceptance of Mathematics and axiomatic systems in general (bear in mind I used to be a math dude...800 math SAT, 36 math ACT, 5th place in state math tourney (1st place team), 0 days of homework) Consider the wikipedia definition of axiom: > An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' With that in mind, consider this: Once I recognize that I have produced a false statement (made a mistake), then thereafter I have a non-zero probability that any statement I make is also false. This includes any statements that I make that make other statements, i.e. systems. So any axiomatic system, wherein there is at least one statement that is "taken to be true", is built on a foundation of hubris - right from the start. So I personally have been on a long journey, where presently I am now working on the ibGib library which turns state into Goedelian numbers (content-addressable hashes of merkle trees/forests), essentially black-boxing "things" into a universe-sized fundamentally interconnected nodal network.

laumars 10y ago

Logic is just reasoning based on rules of validity. So while you're comments are true to a degree, they're also not entirely accurate as it would depend on context; ie on what you're applying the "laws of logic" to. In this instance the author is discussing logical reasoning in relation to our understanding of the laws of physics. If our understanding of the laws of physics is wrong then our logical deductions based on those laws would equally be wrong.

kingkawn 10y ago

logic is culture written over the carefully cultivated emotional state of certainty. It doesn't even have coherent transferrable meaning from one real world context to another, let alone across the cosmic multiverse.

M_Grey 10y ago

It's just kicking the can from "God" to "Aliens". Expecting sense from nonsense is the first problem here. This isn't even metaphysics, it's just amusing bullshit that was born from the classic: Journalist: "So, is it possible that X is true?" Scientist: "It's far more likely that A, B, C...Z are true, but we can't quite rule out X." Headline: "Scientists discover X!"

psyc 10y ago

I always find it curious that people can consider ideas that they have personally been aware of only for several decades to be ultimately universal.

empath75 10y ago

Yeah but if we're living in a simulation, we have no idea of what the laws of physics actually are or if it even makes sense to talk about such a thing. Logic doesn't really help at that point.

stanfordkid 10y ago

It's pretty simple: If you live inside the system and the system knows the experiments you are conducting it can modify the "results" of these experiments to fit a perceived set of axioms that hide the "true axioms". Think of it like Geometric level of detail in video games: when the observer is viewing a character from very far away a low-polygon mesh is displayed -- this is because the mesh only takes up a few pixels of screen space for the observer so rendering a high polygon mesh or a low polygon mesh is indistinguishable. Now when the character is closer to the observer a high polygon mesh with more detail is substituted. The observer can never tell that this trick is happening. If they designed an experiment to test for this the universe could simply spend more time fooling the observer. I am quite sure if we are living in a simulation it makes a lot of approximations. When we conduct complex experiments it simply computes better approximations so that our observed results fit the "axioms of physics".

ibgib 10y ago
I like your video game view of mesh counts, and I assume you're also including clipping as a special case of a 0-count mesh. And since we're programmers, I think there is another very useful vocabulary to use when talking about this: Eager vs lazy. When I open a tree view, it doesn't have to eagerly evaluate all of the contents of each node. It gives you the nodes that you are looking at and you have a decision as to what you want to open. This is precisely analogous to what you "pay attention to". So the "tricks" that you mention could be thought of in terms of lazy evaluations.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
charles-salvia 10y ago
No, what you're saying is that the simulation would mess with our observations - but our basic logical axioms are not dependent on observations to be valid - that's why they're axioms! They are used as valid starting points in reasoning, and nothing the simulation does could change that.

andrewflnr 10y ago

You only have evidence that they're "universal" in this particular universe. Have you tested the laws of logic outside this universe? If so, congratulations, you've answered the whole question. No? Yeah, that's what I thought. All the evidence comes from inside the universe. All the evidence is suspect. There is no progress that can be made on this question without, effectively, divine revelation. Which would still be suspect.

pmoriarty 10y ago

What's going to happen to the universe if it breaks these "laws"? Is someone going to give it a ticket? And why would the universe need to conform to what makes sense to us small-brained monkeys?