5 ms·
The meaningful version of the question "am I in a simulation?" is "how likely am I to observe meddling from simulation masters, as opposed to observing business
by cousin_it 10y ago
The meaningful version of the question "am I in a simulation?" is "how likely am I to observe meddling from simulation masters, as opposed to observing business as usual according to the laws of physics?" The only reasonable answer seems to be "very unlikely, because I haven't observed such meddling before". That reasoning depends only on induction, so it works regardless of how many copies of me exist.
(BTW, I'm pretty convinced that I'm a chorus of infinitely many copies, spread out through space/time/branches/simulations/etc and splitting further on every observation. That seems almost trivially true if you believe the mind is a computation and not something more mystical. The interesting questions are about the relative measure of different copies, and so far it seems like copies in outlandish situations have low measure.)
- moron4hire 10y agoThere is nothing to distinguish meddling from "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model."
- alvarosevilla95 10y agoI disagree. "that's just how the universe works. Time to update the Standard Model." means we learned somthing we previously didn't, and we have to update our model. On the other hand, what if acceleration caused by gravity suddenly became 5 m/s^2? this wouldn't be new information, but a fact that directly contradicts previous knowledge.
- moron4hire 10y ago"Observation contradicting previous knowledge" is literally the point of experimentation. If gravity were to do such a thing, either A) it was indistinguishable from random chance and we incorporate a concept of uncertainty into our understanding of gravity (which has actually happened), or B) it'd be reproducible and we'd... update our understanding of gravity (which has also actually happened). In neither case do we receive information we can use to determine "meddling".
- wallace_f 10y agoand any a priori meddling would be indistinguishable from 'the Standard Model, i.e. that's just how physics works'
- Filligree 10y agoFlaming letters in the sky stating "This is a simulation"?
- Neliquat 10y agoThis sounds like a challenge to all the firework craftspeople. I am convinced it is quite possible. The accuracy now is amazing.
- oldsj 10y agoOr what if there has already been evidence for simulation theory we just can't "see" it like the legend goes for the natives who couldn't see Columbus's ship when it arrived in America whoaaaa
- cousin_it 10y agoThat doesn't seem right. If tomorrow the mass of your ashtray started fluctuating in Morse code, spelling out "hello from the simulation master" and replying to your questions intelligently, your first instinct wouldn't be to update the standard model.
- vidarh 10y agoTo be more precise: The absence of ashtrays fluctuating in Morse code and spelling out messages or other clear signs of influence is not evidence of the absence of meddling. We can not realistically know whether or not someone is meddling with a simulation we are in because there are infinite ways they could do so that would be indistinguishable to us from "just the way the universe is". E.g. for what we know quantum mechanics is an artefact of ways of optimizing the simulation, for example. But at the same time, there are clearly an infinite number of ways those running such simulations could make their existence quite obvious if that was the intent. And frankly that is one of my biggest issues with the simulation argument. Let's call it the Fermi Paradox of the Simulation Agument: If we're in a simulation, where are the obvious signatures of these "simulation masters"? Because if simulations of consciousness eventually becomes possible, I have a hard time of seeing how they'd not eventually become "cheap enough" with sufficient shortcuts that we'd be more likely to live in a far future version of The Sims than a serious scientific simulation. And have you seen what people do to their Sims on Youtube? If we are in a simulation, then I wonder why in the world things are not more messed up. Why hasn't some immature "simulation master" written their name across the night sky with giant fluorescent penises, for example. (Then again, maybe that's in the next simulation over)
- CoolGuySteve 10y agoWe're probably a really boring part of the simulation. Like those pre-made Sims houses you never go to but occasionally call on the phone. Jesus Christ was that pizza party.
- vidarh 10y agoFrankly, if we are in a Sims type game, I really hope we're in one of those boring parts, or all bets are off.
- empath75 10y agoI've long had this idea that if it were a simulation it would only bother to simulate particle physics when we generate energy high enough to probe it.