7 ms·

Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? I don't know either way,

by nothis 8y ago

Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? I don't know either way, I just assumed the headline was basically saying "no, this isn't some sensational new post about how we're all in a simulation, this is hard data leading to realistic results". Kinda defensive more so than click-bait-y.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 8y ago
It is the internet misinterpreting some perfectly valid scientific investigations. A rational discussion of quanta and quantization, how observable information is coded in our universe, morphs into talk of whether that universe actually exists inside a big computer. To correct such rants one must explain quantum physics, something nobody wants to do anytime soon. It made for a half-decent Doctor Who episode.
olavk 8y ago
I don't think any scientist should take it seriously. It is at the level of "maybe this is all just a dream". Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so it is outside the scope of science.
- strange_quark 8y ago
  It's basically religion but with none of the morality attached to it. No wonder so many SV billionaires like the idea.
  - olavk 8y ago
    So like "the singularity" and "transhumanism" - millennia-old religious ideas, repackaged for a technological age.
beefield 8y ago
> Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? There is no practical way to falsify that so yes, it is just a dreamy theory. Unlike some other dreamy theories (creationism and astrology come to my mind) nobody has come up with any practical uses for the dreamy theory either, so that would be a second reason why nobody takes this dreamy theory that seriously. But if this is a simulated game, I would be keen to know how this is scored and how many lifes I have left before game over...
- ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
  Considering that you don't know this already... if the Universe is a Simulated Video Game its very unlikely that it was created for you to play. It's much more likely that you are just an NPC waiting to be harvested for some aliens experience points. The most you can hope for is that you are destroyed in an interesting way, and perhaps your memory lives on in a highlight reel on that aliens stream. I've often wondered if God existed at one point and we were just his video game. But now God found a more interesting game to play and we are just a forgotten game in chugging along in his steam account. I don't think there is a better explanation for the miracle of the pyramids, or the invention of magnets.
  - beefield 8y ago
    > Considering that you don't know this already... if the Universe is a Simulated Video Game its very unlikely that it was created for you to play. Well, if I think from bayesian point of view, given that only creature here that I personally can be somewhat confident actually having any sentience happens to be me, then it would feel quite likely me being a player. Especially as this can be single player game as well...
    - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
      I think you are saying that it would be cruel to create a game where the scenery has real consciousness or sentience. But just because something could be cruel doesn't make it less likely. I think we are basically talking about the plot of West World. And pointing out that it doesn't make sense to give an active inner life to characters that exist only to fill out someone else's designed game experience. But just think about it. If Sims 2099 is capable of giving consciousness to its characters, or at least something so much like it that the characters believe the are conscious, don't you think its very likely players will ask for it? Regardless of the ethical implications.
jerf 8y ago
Yes, it is a serious theory, taken seriously by serious scientists, and seriously investigated by them. It can be hard to tell through the popular science stories, where the author is typically unable to relay anything about this research without adding "woo woo" sounds and wiggling their fingers, but it's a real theory. One thing that may be worth remembering is that in the real theory, the "simulation" is not necessarily running on "a supercomputer just like what we have, only way bigger", which is actually a silly idea for various reasons, and we also do not know that the simulation is literally simulating every particle and every cubic inch of space in the most accurate possible way (i.e., for all we know, far away galaxies could just be a few megabytes in size, rather than fully simulated to the nth degree). The "Great Simulator" is not required to run anything remotely resembling our physics. What seems an absurdly large computation may be smaller than it appears, and may not be an absurdly large amount of a universe running on fundamentally different physics. (Occasionally when I'm bored, I noodle around with a theory of cellular automata in which the universe has infinite computation power by virtue of being able to split a cell in half or quarters, that then runs at double-speed relative to the outside. If this is done recursively the universe has arbitrary computation abilities relative to the "top level". I've never worked it into anything usable, but I think it can give a flavor of why we should not be sure that our simulation host is necessarily as staggered by the computation as we would be. We are not even capable of saying that they aren't running an exponentially-expensive quantum approximation algorithm with the entire universe actually arbitrary-precision integers under the hood. The staggering amount of computation that represents may not bother them at all.) It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable thanks to Church-Turing equivalence, but there are ways in which it could potentially (to any arbitrary degree of confidence you may want) be confirmed if it is true. To take one degenerate case, if the Great Simulator broke silence and starting wildly breaking the laws of physics to get our attention, that would certainly put a lot of probability mass on the "we're a simulation" theory. There are less extreme cases we could conceivably pick up on, that just fits into an HN comment nicely.
- olavk 8y ago
  > It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable, So in what ways is it a "serious theory"?
shawnz 8y ago
> are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? What does such a theory have to do with astronomers or physicists? Its a philosophical issue
- comboy 8y ago
  Since nobody posted it yet, here's the paper: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
qubax 8y ago
> Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? It's a theory that predates the internet. In the expanded view, the theory goes back to antiquity. The modern version is a thought experiment more in line with the drake equation than a dreamy internet theory. It's an idea born of some assumptions and mathematics. > Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? Some are, most aren't. But then again, most astronomers and physicists don't take SETI seriously as they have their own work to focus on. But it certainly isn't anything to be dismissed just like the drake equation or SETI.
colordrops 8y ago
It may or may not be a dreamy internet theory, but "Universe is NOT a simulation" is just as strong and difficult to prove of a statement, perhaps even harder as it's a negative.
cortic 8y ago
There are a few scientific reasons to believe that the universe is simulated; One has something to do with the information in black-holes, i can't remember the details but it suggested to me that '3d space' was fundamentally artificial. Another has to do with quantum entanglement, the explanation for spooky action at a distance could be that the two particles are still in the same 'bit of memory'. And lastly the Uncertainty principle is thought to act a lot like an on-the-fly loading frame in an RPG.. As silly as that sounds there is not really a satisfying explanation of why things are less certain when we are not interacting with them. Its worth noting that even if the universe is simulated, it might not be simulated by intelligence, we don't know enough to say its not 'naturally simulated', that might seem paradoxical but 'simulated' and 'artificial' are very loaded words; A reflection of the moon in a pond is in some way an artificial simulation of a moon..
ben509 8y ago
The one-electron universe[1] was also a dreamy theory, but it inspired some groundbreaking ideas in quantum mechanics. I think the universe as a simulation is less interesting as it's really just taking the notion of materialism to its logical extent. But in fairness to it, it's now part of culture, so if it's causing us to think in ways we wouldn't be aware of, it's harder to see it influencing someone than if he's Feynman getting a sudden phone call from Wheeler. Many thought experiments can also be useful insights into nature of things. The idea of a Boltzmann brain[2], for instance, challenges your intuitions of infinity and thermodynamics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

by nothis 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sandworm101 8y ago

It is the internet misinterpreting some perfectly valid scientific investigations. A rational discussion of quanta and quantization, how observable information is coded in our universe, morphs into talk of whether that universe actually exists inside a big computer. To correct such rants one must explain quantum physics, something nobody wants to do anytime soon. It made for a half-decent Doctor Who episode.

olavk 8y ago

I don't think any scientist should take it seriously. It is at the level of "maybe this is all just a dream". Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so it is outside the scope of science.

strange_quark 8y ago
It's basically religion but with none of the morality attached to it. No wonder so many SV billionaires like the idea.
- olavk 8y ago
  So like "the singularity" and "transhumanism" - millennia-old religious ideas, repackaged for a technological age.

beefield 8y ago

> Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? There is no practical way to falsify that so yes, it is just a dreamy theory. Unlike some other dreamy theories (creationism and astrology come to my mind) nobody has come up with any practical uses for the dreamy theory either, so that would be a second reason why nobody takes this dreamy theory that seriously. But if this is a simulated game, I would be keen to know how this is scored and how many lifes I have left before game over...

ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
Considering that you don't know this already... if the Universe is a Simulated Video Game its very unlikely that it was created for you to play. It's much more likely that you are just an NPC waiting to be harvested for some aliens experience points. The most you can hope for is that you are destroyed in an interesting way, and perhaps your memory lives on in a highlight reel on that aliens stream. I've often wondered if God existed at one point and we were just his video game. But now God found a more interesting game to play and we are just a forgotten game in chugging along in his steam account. I don't think there is a better explanation for the miracle of the pyramids, or the invention of magnets.
- beefield 8y ago
  > Considering that you don't know this already... if the Universe is a Simulated Video Game its very unlikely that it was created for you to play. Well, if I think from bayesian point of view, given that only creature here that I personally can be somewhat confident actually having any sentience happens to be me, then it would feel quite likely me being a player. Especially as this can be single player game as well...
  - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
    I think you are saying that it would be cruel to create a game where the scenery has real consciousness or sentience. But just because something could be cruel doesn't make it less likely. I think we are basically talking about the plot of West World. And pointing out that it doesn't make sense to give an active inner life to characters that exist only to fill out someone else's designed game experience. But just think about it. If Sims 2099 is capable of giving consciousness to its characters, or at least something so much like it that the characters believe the are conscious, don't you think its very likely players will ask for it? Regardless of the ethical implications.

jerf 8y ago

Yes, it is a serious theory, taken seriously by serious scientists, and seriously investigated by them. It can be hard to tell through the popular science stories, where the author is typically unable to relay anything about this research without adding "woo woo" sounds and wiggling their fingers, but it's a real theory. One thing that may be worth remembering is that in the real theory, the "simulation" is not necessarily running on "a supercomputer just like what we have, only way bigger", which is actually a silly idea for various reasons, and we also do not know that the simulation is literally simulating every particle and every cubic inch of space in the most accurate possible way (i.e., for all we know, far away galaxies could just be a few megabytes in size, rather than fully simulated to the nth degree). The "Great Simulator" is not required to run anything remotely resembling our physics. What seems an absurdly large computation may be smaller than it appears, and may not be an absurdly large amount of a universe running on fundamentally different physics. (Occasionally when I'm bored, I noodle around with a theory of cellular automata in which the universe has infinite computation power by virtue of being able to split a cell in half or quarters, that then runs at double-speed relative to the outside. If this is done recursively the universe has arbitrary computation abilities relative to the "top level". I've never worked it into anything usable, but I think it can give a flavor of why we should not be sure that our simulation host is necessarily as staggered by the computation as we would be. We are not even capable of saying that they aren't running an exponentially-expensive quantum approximation algorithm with the entire universe actually arbitrary-precision integers under the hood. The staggering amount of computation that represents may not bother them at all.) It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable thanks to Church-Turing equivalence, but there are ways in which it could potentially (to any arbitrary degree of confidence you may want) be confirmed if it is true. To take one degenerate case, if the Great Simulator broke silence and starting wildly breaking the laws of physics to get our attention, that would certainly put a lot of probability mass on the "we're a simulation" theory. There are less extreme cases we could conceivably pick up on, that just fits into an HN comment nicely.

olavk 8y ago
> It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable, So in what ways is it a "serious theory"?

shawnz 8y ago

> are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? What does such a theory have to do with astronomers or physicists? Its a philosophical issue

comboy 8y ago
Since nobody posted it yet, here's the paper: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

qubax 8y ago

> Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? It's a theory that predates the internet. In the expanded view, the theory goes back to antiquity. The modern version is a thought experiment more in line with the drake equation than a dreamy internet theory. It's an idea born of some assumptions and mathematics. > Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? Some are, most aren't. But then again, most astronomers and physicists don't take SETI seriously as they have their own work to focus on. But it certainly isn't anything to be dismissed just like the drake equation or SETI.

colordrops 8y ago

It may or may not be a dreamy internet theory, but "Universe is NOT a simulation" is just as strong and difficult to prove of a statement, perhaps even harder as it's a negative.

cortic 8y ago

There are a few scientific reasons to believe that the universe is simulated; One has something to do with the information in black-holes, i can't remember the details but it suggested to me that '3d space' was fundamentally artificial. Another has to do with quantum entanglement, the explanation for spooky action at a distance could be that the two particles are still in the same 'bit of memory'. And lastly the Uncertainty principle is thought to act a lot like an on-the-fly loading frame in an RPG.. As silly as that sounds there is not really a satisfying explanation of why things are less certain when we are not interacting with them. Its worth noting that even if the universe is simulated, it might not be simulated by intelligence, we don't know enough to say its not 'naturally simulated', that might seem paradoxical but 'simulated' and 'artificial' are very loaded words; A reflection of the moon in a pond is in some way an artificial simulation of a moon..

ben509 8y ago

The one-electron universe[1] was also a dreamy theory, but it inspired some groundbreaking ideas in quantum mechanics. I think the universe as a simulation is less interesting as it's really just taking the notion of materialism to its logical extent. But in fairness to it, it's now part of culture, so if it's causing us to think in ways we wouldn't be aware of, it's harder to see it influencing someone than if he's Feynman getting a sudden phone call from Wheeler. Many thought experiments can also be useful insights into nature of things. The idea of a Boltzmann brain[2], for instance, challenges your intuitions of infinity and thermodynamics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain